Now it's against the ToS to 'share accounts'. Previously, groups were encouraged to use character builder on multiple devices, in order to facilitate group play. Now with the limit being set at 20, they've announced that one of the reasons is to facilitate individual use, a complete reversal of the earlier group mentality.
As I mentioned in the other thread, WotC has always, always been clear that allowing multiple people to use one subscription is againts the ToS. Every time it has been asked, they have always replied, clearly and unequivocally "Sharing acounts is againts the ToS."
Now it's against the ToS to 'share accounts'. Previously, groups were encouraged to use character builder on multiple devices, in order to facilitate group play. Now with the limit being set at 20, they've announced that one of the reasons is to facilitate individual use, a complete reversal of the earlier group mentality.
As I mentioned in the other thread, WotC has always, always been clear that allowing multiple people to use one subscription is againts the ToS. Every time it has been asked, they have always replied, clearly and unequivocally "Sharing acounts is againts the ToS."
... So you're saying that if I log in my account and switch seats with someone to make a character for my campaign, I'm breaking the ToS? I don't share my account information, however, with the other players. They cannot use it when I am not present, and they are making characters for a campaign in which I run. This is against the ToS from what you're implying.
Now it's against the ToS to 'share accounts'. Previously, groups were encouraged to use character builder on multiple devices, in order to facilitate group play. Now with the limit being set at 20, they've announced that one of the reasons is to facilitate individual use, a complete reversal of the earlier group mentality.
As I mentioned in the other thread, WotC has always, always been clear that allowing multiple people to use one subscription is againts the ToS. Every time it has been asked, they have always replied, clearly and unequivocally "Sharing acounts is againts the ToS."
... So you're saying that if I log in my account and switch seats with someone to make a character for my campaign, I'm breaking the ToS? I don't share my account information, however, with the other players. They cannot use it when I am not present, and they are making characters for a campaign in which I run. This is against the ToS from what you're implying.
Technically, yes. What they've been saying and encouraging us is another matter.
Now it's against the ToS to 'share accounts'. Previously, groups were encouraged to use character builder on multiple devices, in order to facilitate group play. Now with the limit being set at 20, they've announced that one of the reasons is to facilitate individual use, a complete reversal of the earlier group mentality.
As I mentioned in the other thread, WotC has always, always been clear that allowing multiple people to use one subscription is againts the ToS. Every time it has been asked, they have always replied, clearly and unequivocally "Sharing acounts is againts the ToS."
... So you're saying that if I log in my account and switch seats with someone to make a character for my campaign, I'm breaking the ToS? I don't share my account information, however, with the other players. They cannot use it when I am not present, and they are making characters for a campaign in which I run. This is against the ToS from what you're implying.
My apologies. I misunderstood the situation you were describing. From your initial description, I thought you were talking about 1 subscription being used by 5 different people, each at their own house. That is against the ToS.
What you describe above, however, is IMO, well within the bounds of what is acceptable by the ToS.
Now it's against the ToS to 'share accounts'. Previously, groups were encouraged to use character builder on multiple devices, in order to facilitate group play. Now with the limit being set at 20, they've announced that one of the reasons is to facilitate individual use, a complete reversal of the earlier group mentality.
As I mentioned in the other thread, WotC has always, always been clear that allowing multiple people to use one subscription is againts the ToS. Every time it has been asked, they have always replied, clearly and unequivocally "Sharing acounts is againts the ToS."
... So you're saying that if I log in my account and switch seats with someone to make a character for my campaign, I'm breaking the ToS? I don't share my account information, however, with the other players. They cannot use it when I am not present, and they are making characters for a campaign in which I run. This is against the ToS from what you're implying.
My apologies. I misunderstood the situation you were describing. From your initial description, I thought you were talking about 1 subscription being used by 5 different people, each at their own house. That is against the ToS.
What you describe above, however, is IMO, well within the bounds of what is acceptable by the ToS.
Again, my apologies for misunderstanding you.
It's alright. This is why a 20 character limit is unrealistic. I can run games for three different groups of friends. I usually run a game once every two weeks. 20 characters ends up being a very small number for me. That doesn't include games that I, personally, play in where the GM doesn't have character builder or DDI.
Personally, it's going to cut it close, moreover it's not a realistic expectation on WotC's part, and from the way they are presenting it, they expect individual users to purchase accounts for their own characters. Instead of saying 'It's against the ToS to share account information and passwords', they are saying 'It's against the ToS to share accounts.' They aren't one in the same. Of course, the second response... naturally provides WotC with more money by the reasons mentioned beforehand. Not a lie, but not 100% honest.
THIS AGREEMENT GOVERNS YOUR ACCESS, INSTALLATION AND USE OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE INCLUDING ASSOCIATED MEDIA, TEXT, IMAGES AND OTHER “ONLINE” OR ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTATION, AND RELATED SERVICES ("SOFTWARE") PROVIDED HEREUNDER BY WIZARDS OF THE COAST LLC (“WE”, “US” OR "WIZARDS").
You may not transfer, sell or share your Account with anyone, unless you are a parent or guardian, in which case you may permit one child to use the Account instead of yourself.
Subject to your compliance with this License, during the license term Wizards grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-assignable limited license to personally use the Software on one (1) computer which you own or is under your personal control.
The Software is licensed, not sold.
This License is personal to you, and may not be assigned.
Whether "letting other use the software you installed on your computer" (primary for his/her entertainment?) counts as "personal use" is not for me to decide, but if you ask me I think it's more like a temporary transferal of the license which is prohibited.
1. When I played RPGs before 4e I did not use a computer to make characters. I filled out character sheets by hand. And that was fine. It became a lot of work to make a higher level character in 3.x, but it was still fine. And many of those character sheets fill drawers in my house after 25+ years of gaming. When I look at those sheets, I have fond memories.
Now, all of a sudden, there are people on this forum who actually want to tell me that WotC is “kidnapping” my character because I am saving the character’s data on a WotC server. Huh? Did I miss a meeting? How does that kidnap my character? I can still print out the character sheet and have the character right there. Is “kidnapping” not a little over the top? Do you really have to use this word?
In those older editions, how many books were there that contained magical items (complete with levels)? Spells/powers? Feats?
[Edit]And, of course, mountains of errata to sift through just to see if one of those items or powers still functions as intended (Action Point +1 armor?).[/Edit]
In the older editions, especially 3.x, there were tons of books that all had new feats, new spells and new magic items in them. I must own well over 30 books for 3.x alone, all of them with new classes, feats, spells and magic items in them. The list of errata for these books were just as long as they are in 4e. And because you had wizards and clerics and other spellcasters who could choose from a vast list of different spells (played a wizard once and had to choose from about 70 spells in level 16 in 3.5 - every ingame day, mind you. Clerics had hundreds of spells to choose from every ingame day), there was a lot of work connected with "working" on your character. It became very difficult to sift through all of these books and create a high-level character. That is why 3.x required players to be in full control of the rules in order to make a compatible character.
Nowadays, you open up the CB and voila! You have everything right there. And you have much less powers to choose from every ingame day (or as it is put in 4e: after an extended rest). Very comfortable. Very balanced, too. You can klick through the character data, level by level and choose what you like. Much less knowledge needed to make a decent character. More power to the players. Less prep-time spent for a DM. Well worth paying 5 euros a month for in my opinion.
Now, I hear you say: But they will take this all away if I unsubscribe. Making a character will be much harder for me then. Yes, that is true. But that is exactly what you are paying for: WotC offers you the service of being able to make your character the easy way. Once you unsubscribe, you still have the character information as a pdf or in some other format. But the ease to make a character is gone. You keep your character, you will just have it harder to develop it. They take away what you are paying for: the service. The service only.
So, content-wise, there are many good reasons to buy a subscription. But that is a question of content and of individual taste and choice. This thread is about the form of posting, though.
By the way, I just saw that another thread opened up about the same subject:
In the older editions, especially 3.x, there were tons of books that all had new feats, new spells and new magic items in them. I must own well over 30 books for 3.x alone, all of them with new classes, feats, spells and magic items in them. The list of errata for these books were just as long as they are in 4e. And because you had wizards and clerics and other spellcasters who could choose from a vast list of different spells (played a wizard once and had to choose from about 70 spells in level 16 in 3.5 - every ingame day, mind you. Clerics had hundreds of spells to choose from every ingame day), there was a lot of work connected with "working" on your character. It became very difficult to sift through all of these books and create a high-level character. That is why 3.x required players to be in full control of the rules in order to make a compatible character.
Nowadays, you open up the CB and voila! You have everything right there. And you have much less powers to choose from every ingame day (or as it is put in 4e: after an extended rest). Very comfortable. Very balanced, too. You can klick through the character data, level by level and choose what you like. Much less knowledge needed to make a decent character. More power to the players. Less prep-time spent for a DM. Well worth paying 5 euros a month for in my opinion.
Now, I hear you say: But they will take this all away if I unsubscribe. Making a character will be much harder for me then. Yes, that is true. But that is exactly what you are paying for: WotC offers you the service of being able to make your character the easy way. Once you unsubscribe, you still have the character information as a pdf or in some other format. But the ease to make a character is gone. You keep your character, you will just have it harder to develop it. They take away what you are paying for: the service. The service only.
So, content-wise, there are many good reasons to buy a subscription. But that is a question of content and of individual taste and choice. This thread is about the form of posting, though.
By the way, I just saw that another thread opened up about the same subject:
I fully agree with the OP of this thread. He is right on the money in my opinion.
Well, for the sake of argument. I don't. The thread is locked so I cannot fully comment, but what he mentions goes against the ideals of capitalism and free speech in general. -If- WotC wanted to listen to the public opinion, they would have listened in the years that DDI has been available. If they wanted to communicate, they would have chosen to do so, instead of limiting communications between portions of the company. It's a matter of intent and action.
BTW. Other threads that are deemed inflammatory or against the ToS, but this is one of the few threads I see as locked. I guess someone (WotC) like the idea of all the people whom have problems quieting down.
BTW. Other threads that are deemed inflammatory or against the ToS, but this is one of the few threads I see as locked. I guess someone (WotC) like the idea of all the people whom have problems quieting down.
nah, wotc hardly ever closes threads on their own. however, if you hit that "report" button, and have good arguments, the thread is likely to be closed for good measure.
Sadly, I don't think this has anything to do with wanting Next to be a great game. It has to do with wanting Next to determine who won the Edition War. [...] For those of us who just want D&D Next to be a good game, this is getting to be a real drag.
I think I figured it out. This program is a character builder, not a character builder. It teaches patience, empathy, and tolerance. All most excellent character traits.
