That wouldn't be what I was saying. More along the lines of we have plenty of game material, too much maybe, and the rate of new material slowing down isn't a bad thing.
How is it not a bad thing? New material is their source of income. If we don't get new stuff, why would we keep giving them money, instead of save our money / spend it elsehwere, and pay with the other stuff we already [strikethrough]own[/strikethrough] have access to?
(of course, that's part of why they went to digital distribution! You don't just pay for new stuff, you pay for continued access to the old stuff! Clever girl.)
Don't use strikethroughs and underlines next to each other. It's hard to read. In fact, strikethroughs are hard to read at all. Use colorvariations, or bold and italics, or something.
I'll keep that in mind if I can be buggered to do another of these.
You said you weren't striking through mechanical content regardless of quality. This is mechanical content. Whether it should have been in the other magazine is irrelevent.
A) My list, so it's relevant. B) I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the player content magazine to contain player content rather than being padded out with half of a Dungeon article.
I don't object to you not counting it, but the main issue is that it isn't behind the paywall, and thus isn't dragon content that we're paying for.
I wasn't even going so in-depth as what's paid for and what's not; I was simply reviewing the whole of Dragon's content, not DDI in particular. Since you appear to be complaining that I discounted something which you feel shouldn't be counted, I believe the relevant meme is 'lol why u mad tho?'
I also agree that errata that doesn't bring new content shouldn't be counted. However, you're use of the term 'essentials' in describing this, especially when theres nothing 'essentialsish' about the errata other then the format its written in (which is the format for everything these days, regardless), implies a reactionary rejection of anything you percieve as essentials-related that is going to completely undermine any objective review you attempt.
I'd actually meant to go back and remove any mention of Essentials specifically to keep people from whitewashing my argument as 'completely undermined' by uttering the very word. This errata converts the Warlord class into the Marshall subclass in order to fit with the New World Order 'new direction' that, if one dare to call it Essentials (just because it perfectly coincides with and complements the design thereof), makes people go rabid in their fervor to correct the point. I think it's fair to call it the 'Essentials errata' for the class since it officially welcomes it into Essentials compliance. If anyone's showing bias, I think it's the people getting bent out of shape assuming I meant 'Essentials errata' as some kind of slander, or that I discounted the 'content' for being Essentials rather than for being errata.
(Ability Score Bonuses) is errata, and not behind the paywall, and thus doesn't count towards dragon content that we're paying extra for.
Like I said, my list. While this does alter present content, I feel that it's more than just errata in the sheer scope of that change.
They should have been in that published content. But they weren't.
Yes, yes. So I've been told in this very thread. My mistake for taking WotC's word for it.
(The gambling article is) Still content. You never said you were counting only player-only content, frankly.
We're talking about Dragon Magazine. I shouldn't have to specify that. Dragon is player content, Dungeon is DM content. Filling the once-crunchy former with fluff that belongs in the latter is blatant and unforgivable padding.
You're also failing to take into account whether the articles are themselves part of the paid-for subscriptions or not, because if you're going to complain about free articles you're just being silly.
As I said, I'm holding the publication as a whole accountable for its content, not merely the pay-only parts. Should the free-to-all content not be held to any standard simply because they didn't ask money for it? Sorry; I'm not one to call a mouthful of crap delicious just because it came free.
Despite disagreeing with several of your individual points, I don't disagree with your overall assessment. DDI content has been far below expectations of late.
I've never been disagreed with so much as when you're agreeing with me, Malisteen. Still, I suppose it speaks well to the truth of the situation that even without being perfectly in sync we still ultimately come to the same conclusion.
Speaking for myself, I pay people to design games, not write fiction. I don't need umpteen pages of fluff, I can make that up myself. However, I am aware that I am not a qualified game designer, and that is what I would like to pay for.
Yep, this. If I had a head for inventing rules I'd build my own system. As I instead have a head for telling stories, I pay WotC to give me the rules needed to support those stories. Putting a bit of their own fluff on as a sort of garnish is fine, because sometimes I'll actually enjoy it as-is, but it's nothing but a waste of time and effort to produce any more than that.
Probably true. Here's the thing. 3.5 had five years to build that bloat. In 5 years, for example, we got 3,340 feats in 3.5. The Compendium lists 3,066 feats in 4e, and that's only after 2.5 years. 3.5 has 782 prestige classes. 4e has 547 Paragon Paths and 107 Epic Destinies, for 654 equivalent classes in about half the time. 4e had been pumping out mechanics at about twice the rate of 3.5. That's astounding and unsustainable.
Yep, and the truly key concept here, in my opinion, is that what 3e was pumping out was about 75% fluff (in that way in which that edition mingled fluff with mechanics), and what 4e was pumping out at twice the rate was at least 85% crunch. That's beyond astounding, in my opinion, and I can understand why that would prove unsustainable. I don't think it's unreasonable for the rate of release to dwindle after going hard and strong for more than two years.
However, I don't think it's unreasonable that a decrease in content, even a necessary one, ought to be accompanied by a decrease in price per unit. I'm not necessarily saying that the rent is too damn high, but reducing content while maintaining the same price point seems on at least some level to be a denial of that obvious content reduction.
Again, I'm not saying that this is specifically the breaking point for me. Like when my preferred brand of hard cider reduced its bottle volume from 12oz to 11.2oz while maintaining the same price per unit, I think I'm justified in grumbling and pointing to the loss of value. Same goes here; I'm not issuing an ultimatum or even attributing the loss of value to anything other than the changing times. I guess this is just a leery consumer squinting at the label and saying to the company 'I see what you did there.'
(I employ zie/zie/zir as a gender-neutral counterpart to he/him/his. Just a heads-up.)
Essentials definitely isn't for me as a player, and I feel that its design and implementation bear serious flaws which fill me with concern for the future of D&D, but I've come to the conclusion that it isn't going to destroy the game that I want to play. Indeed, I think that I could probably run a game for players using Essentials characters without it being much of a problem at all. Time will tell, I suppose.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I think we were all accustomed to the bloat of 3.5E and even those of us who welcomed 4E with open arms missed that bloat. I know I did.
Probably true. Here's the thing. 3.5 had five years to build that bloat. In 5 years, for example, we got 3,340 feats in 3.5. The Compendium lists 3,066 feats in 4e, and that's only after 2.5 years. 3.5 has 782 prestige classes. 4e has 547 Paragon Paths and 107 Epic Destinies, for 654 equivalent classes in about half the time. 4e had been pumping out mechanics at about twice the rate of 3.5. That's astounding and unsustainable.
Wrecan, as usual you post something that makes sense and has actual research to back it up.
So I think what this means is that for people wanting support for the less popular choices, you will just have to be patient. And everyone needs to realize that we have an enormous amount of material for such a short time span.
Regarding the reprint of old classes in the new format: I honestly don't understand why anyone could be mad about this. Even if you hate every single thing about the new material (and I mean everything, right down to the font), the fact is that WotC is giving away material for free. These articles were not Subscriber only content. This is a fantastic thing, considering how often I see people accuse WotC of doing things as a "cash grab". The PHB, while a fantastic book (my current party uses many things from it), it also out of date. The Rules Compendium replaces the rules content from the book, but the Classes have all been changed by Errata. So now new players have two options: they can decide to still buy the book even though it needs to be manually updated (because many of us just like the feel of an actual book in our hands) or they can download a free article with all the updated info for the class in one place (because many of us love computers). More options. Free options. What is bad about that?
Agreed. Of course, they could have easily trimmed that many pages of the extraneous, unnecessary fluff out of the rest of the book ...
Again, no they could not. One, it is part of the Essetials design system, so until that changes it's not going to get cut, and two, fluff sells.
Actually, fluff sells to some, not all. I, for example, would rather they cut all but the barest flavour and give me more mechanical goodies in its place. So justifying the stance by saying "fluff sells" seems to indicate that I am in the "minority". While this does not seem accurate, I could definitely be wrong.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )
Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotesShow
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
And again. Apperently, if I open the reply page in a new tab, post, and then close the original tab while the posting tab is still loading, the post is lost.
That exact process has been my posting method on every forum I've posted in for as long as I've been posting in forums. That is, at least ten years. I'm not sure why it's causing problems now, but I just can't bring myself to rehash that entire post. Especially not when it's the second one tonight, in the same thread.
The tl;dr was basically, "I make very good use of fluff articles, as a player and DM. If the mags had no fluff, or even a bare minimum amount of fluff, I would consider them a complete waste of time, outside of free articles, since if I have a ddi sub, I can just check out new mechanical options in the CB."
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
While I am in the less fluff, more crunch camp for the most part (I like monster fluff for various reasons), and I agree with most points made, there seems to be a bit of a selfish vibe coming from the stance. Most of you are stating that you can write your own fiction, but would have a hard time coming up with your own mechanics and such. What about those DMs and players that can do the mechanics just fine and can come up with their own powers, feats, classes and such, but have a hard time making up their own story and fluff?
I know someone like this. They can delve down into a system and break it down to the nuts and bolts and build anything, but when it comes to story and fluff, he's an old timer, and relies on published materials to give him the setting and the story. This edition has been murder on him because of the lack of settings and modules (he won't use DDI). He's managed to convert some, but they don't come off as well as published materials mainly because older editions were murderously ruthless when it came to what you were expected to survive. So if there is more fluff coming, then it helps people like him. Just stating a case here.
@Original Topic: Dragon has had a "downward trend" for a long long time now. Now that it has a buffer of "Books we were writing, but decided not to publish" material, maybe it can turn that around.
@"Fluff vs. Crunch": I tend to look at it this way.
Good Crunch is hard to write, and hard to find. Good Fluff is hard to write, but incredibly easy to find.
By which I mean: books, internet, films, whathaveyou. All are sources of "fluff". Especially with the internet, and various wiki/wikia sites, finding a setting one likes and stealing from it wholesale is incredibly bloody easy.
Just a personal position. I can find fluff really easily. I don't need WotC to provide me with a ton of it.
I can still appreciate it, though, when it's not in the form of a short story or, as has been the case with some material, "totally not a short story (though it clearly is)".
I don't appreciate the large amount of padding in the new essentials "format", that is purported to be "fluff". Things like the feat, feature, and power descriptions aren't "fluff" - they're repetitive padding that winds up making less content look like more.
Fluff and crunch don't really exisit independently of each other. Alot of the greatest D&D sourcebooks were heavy on the fluff.
I disagree with the former sentence and point out that the latter does not logically support it. One could just as easily say that internal combustion engines and rubber tires don't really exist independently of each other because a (SPAAAAAACE) lot of the greatest motor vehicles had rubber tires.
To expand upon my disagreement, WotC could release a class designated 'Class-Role Model 114' with a host of powers and features with absolutely no fluff whatsoever. This one pushes, that one stuns, it gets to punish this particular enemy action, whatever, but at no point does it say why or how. I would treasure this new class (assuming good design, of course). I would, simply in the course of reading it, imagine a half-dozen different fluffs for those abilities, for the class features, for the class as a whole. If WotC can bring one half of the crunch-fluff equation and I another, that would indicate to me that the two elements do exist independently of one another.
Mind you, I'm not saying that the above scenario is my ideal: I like a garnish of fluff to nudge me in a particular direction, but it's far from vital. I'm the guy who looks at a Warforged Druid and sees an Elan Soulknife.
@Original Topic: Dragon has had a "downward trend" for a long long time now. Now that it has a buffer of "Books we were writing, but decided not to publish" material, maybe it can turn that around.
I admit that I'm not this optimistic. Since I estimate that the reason the new books got scrapped is because they were falling behind on publishing at the promised rate, I don't expect that they had much queued up for release when they gave it the axe. I think that they killed development farther back than we realize, published what they actually did have queued up (I don't see any sense in deliberately choosing to not profit maximally from content already made (especially with rough times clearly ahead) and 'get full cover price' beats 'fold it into a subscription we're already getting paid for' hands-down), and only told us that they'd cut the schedule once the larder was empty. I think they're running on fumes, not reserves.
(I employ zie/zie/zir as a gender-neutral counterpart to he/him/his. Just a heads-up.)
Essentials definitely isn't for me as a player, and I feel that its design and implementation bear serious flaws which fill me with concern for the future of D&D, but I've come to the conclusion that it isn't going to destroy the game that I want to play. Indeed, I think that I could probably run a game for players using Essentials characters without it being much of a problem at all. Time will tell, I suppose.
Still, I suppose it speaks well to the truth of the situation that even without being perfectly in sync we still ultimately come to the same conclusion.
