I love D&D. It is without a doubt my favorite hobby. But let's be real: Hasbro has sort of botched 4E. You may like the rules system, but it's far beyond that. D&D Insider is a mess; features that were promised were never delivered, and frankly, I don't see the value in spending money just so I can read what some random person sent in to the online magazines. I can get that stuff elsewhere for free. D&D Miniatures? I like the new rules system, but again, quality has gone way down.
I appreciate some of the effort that has been put into D&D, but I really think it might flourish in more capable hands. If Hasbro can fix everything in the next few months, then sure, that works. But I can't see any solution on the horizon to all of the mismanagement that has plagued this edition.
Maybe it's time to cut the losses and hand over the license to an entity that will actually follow through on its promises instead of faltering on said promises while arbitrarily dividing up basic and core content to be released as 'supplements' just to milk the fanbase that has kept you alive this long. I'm just saying.
Not particularly.
Back when I started DnD it didn't have any sort of online support until it was owned by Wizards (then they by Hasbro). As far as these new forums go, as long as that text up there continues to say Beta I'm not going to be hostile towards the bugs (I will, however, complain constructively).
So everything you get on this website, besides DDI, is stuff for the low price of 0$. Never look a gift horse in the mouth.
As far as DDI goes, the current content is very reasonably priced. You forget the compendium, it seems. All the crunch for the price of a small monthly subscription fee. It saves a lot of money if you decide to do that than buy the sattelite hard content. The character builder is the best thing they've ever created, and Dungeon and Dragon magazine have -always- accepted fan submissions, even before they were DDI. They were, and continue to be, great magazines full of grade A content.
So, personally, and this comes from a life-time player of DND, no I don't think I would like Hasbro (or Wizards) to sell of the DnD brand. If it weren't for them, it wouldn't exist. (No one would touch it with a 10 foot pole at the end of the 2nd edition era.)
I like where its gone and where its going. So no.
Well. I would say the mess of the digital D&D stuff (PDF's, D&Di etc) has absolutely nothing to do with what WOTC have done the 4th ed, i think 4th ed has been a stroke on genius and I love where the game has gone (I really disliked where I thought it was heading when 3rd ed was released).
Now, I do think they need to sort out PDF's etc, but that can be fixed (rather quickly) with some fresh input (a modernized point of view maybe?) and actually finding capable code monkeys or at least more of them.
But let's be real: Hasbro has sort of botched 4E.
Hasbro has not touched D&D. In looking over the names of the staff at WotC, I don't see anyone in development, design, or brand management that is NOT from the RPG gaming industry.
D&D Insider is a mess; features that were promised were never delivered
Although the latter is true (some promised features were never delivered), I don't see ddi as a mess at all.
I don't see the value in spending money just so I can read what some random person sent in to the online magazines
What are you talkign about ehre? I haven't seen a single article in the magazines thus far written by "some random person"
I appreciate some of the effort that has been put into D&D, but I really think it might flourish in more capable hands. If Hasbro can fix everything in the next few months, then sure, that works. But I can't see any solution on the horizon to all of the mismanagement that has plagued this edition.
I believe you assocaite your concerns far too much with Hasbro and far too little withyour own preferences. And I do not see how Hasbro selling the D&D brand to someone other than WotC would accomplish a change for the better.
I love D&D. It is without a doubt my favorite hobby. But let's be real: Hasbro has sort of botched 4E. You may like the rules system, but it's far beyond that. D&D Insider is a mess; features that were promised were never delivered, and frankly, I don't see the value in spending money just so I can read what some random person sent in to the online magazines. I can get that stuff elsewhere for free. D&D Miniatures? I like the new rules system, but again, quality has gone way down.
I appreciate some of the effort that has been put into D&D, but I really think it might flourish in more capable hands. If Hasbro can fix everything in the next few months, then sure, that works. But I can't see any solution on the horizon to all of the mismanagement that has plagued this edition.
Maybe it's time to cut the losses and hand over the license to an entity that will actually follow through on its promises instead of faltering on said promises while arbitrarily dividing up basic and core content to be released as 'supplements' just to milk the fanbase that has kept you alive this long. I'm just saying.
No, I don't agree with you. I think 4e is the best thing that could have ever happened to D&D. I love where 4e has taken the game (and I was fairly upset with where 3e was taking the game). I also love what I am getting from DDi, even if it isn't everything they promised it to be, and think that the content I am getting is well worth the price I am paying.
So no, I don't think anyone should sell of D&D. I think WotC is doing a bang up job with the product.
I really think most of it could be done better. Rather than have WotC sell the D&D IP, why not just fire all the managers and get some in there that have an idea of what they are doing. From what I've seen every single problem has been because the managers don't have a clue what they are doing.
But let's be real: Hasbro has sort of botched 4E.
Hasbro has not touched D&D. In looking over the names of the staff at WotC, I don't see anyone in development, design, or brand management that is NOT from the RPG gaming industry
Well to be honest, Hasbro IS in the business to sell plastic. It's highly probable that the push to sell minis came from them.
It's the best they could do in the economy crunch that wasn't trying to repair the bloat of 3.5.
But let's be real: Hasbro has sort of botched 4E.
Hasbro has not touched D&D. In looking over the names of the staff at WotC, I don't see anyone in development, design, or brand management that is NOT from the RPG gaming industryWell to be honest, Hasbro IS in the business to sell plastic. It's highly probable that the push to sell minis came from them.
It's the best they could do in the economy crunch that wasn't trying to repair the bloat of 3.5.
Also don't forget that Ha$bro sent down one of their managers to be the CEO of WotC awhile back, so their whole 'make money over all other concerns' philosphy came with them.
oh wotc and hhasbro could of done far better with dnd altogether...
so I'm kinda sorta that they should sell it, either that or take their name off anything dnd related.
to me dnd is no family game, wouldnt want a 6 yr old playing, thats whats heroscape is for.
create a dummy corp, and take their name off anything dnd related, from the video games to the pnp products, and stick dummy corp's name on it.
in otherwords stay out of the development issues, all they have to is worry about the legal issues
thats me though.
I really think most of it could be done better. Rather than have WotC sell the D&D IP, why not just fire all the managers and get some in there that have an idea of what they are doing. From what I've seen every single problem has been because the managers don't have a clue what they are doing.
I'm not trying to call you out, but can you provide evidence that the source of the problems is the management staff? I'm not saying it isn't possible, just that it seems very unlikely that anyone would actually have real evidence to support this claim, seeing as how management failures rarely are heard about except by the people in the company. Those working for the managers may complain to their friends and family, but only a person who's just retired would publicly expose poor management. Your claim seems like it isn't reasonably justified, but only an inference.
I really think most of it could be done better. Rather than have WotC sell the D&D IP, why not just fire all the managers and get some in there that have an idea of what they are doing. From what I've seen every single problem has been because the managers don't have a clue what they are doing.
I'm not trying to call you out, but can you provide evidence that the source of the problems is the management staff? I'm not saying it isn't possible, just that it seems very unlikely that anyone would actually have real evidence to support this claim, seeing as how management failures rarely are heard about except by the people in the company. Those working for the managers may complain to their friends and family, but only a person who's just retired would publicly expose poor management. Your claim seems like it isn't reasonably justified, but only an inference.
Actually its pretty simple to prove. Managers are the ones to make the decisions. No one else can make those kinds of decisions. The delay and then subsequent cancelation of the GT (Game Table) and CV (Character Visualizer) are prime examples. The people working on them could not have chose to not work on them. They would have been fired. Someone in management had to choose not to work on them, or delay them, or cancel them. The decision to use this very unpolished community site instead of one that was pre-made and already very polished and tested is another example. The management didn't say to the IT people you get to choose a new forum package. They shopped around and said 'this one is the cheapest'. Its really obvious when you look at the different clues.
I'm not trying to call you out, but can you provide evidence that the source of the problems is the management staff? I'm not saying it isn't possible, just that it seems very unlikely that anyone would actually have real evidence to support this claim, seeing as how management failures rarely are heard about except by the people in the company. Those working for the managers may complain to their friends and family, but only a person who's just retired would publicly expose poor management. Your claim seems like it isn't reasonably justified, but only an inference.
A lot of times, "management" gets blamed for decisions that people don't like. (Note, not saying that WotC employees have said that). However, in the end, the managers are the ones that have to make the final decisions. And the decisions that one person likes and sees as good managerial decisions, another person will dislike and see as bad managerial decisions. In addition, the managers who make the decisions have all of the information available to them. Armchair managers on the forums only have a small slice (if that) of the information.
What we can't run a company from these forums 
Armchair managers on the forums only have a small slice (if that) of the information.
Not to mention they have their own self interests and preferences in mind with what they consider Bad management decisions, and not the interests of the company.
Armchair managers on the forums only have a small slice (if that) of the information.
Not to mention they have their own self interests and preferences in mind with what they consider Bad management decisions, and not the interests of the company.
Exactly my point, the company only has its own interests in mind. About the single most important interest a company has is being profitable. Most don't look beyond that. Some (like WotC) grab the quick money without thinking about the impact it will have in the future.
Before you jump on me and start flaming me, I understand that companies need to make money to be viable. I really do, but they need to think ahead a little and quit making these short sighted decisions to grab the cash now, and set up to grab the cash later.
An example is why do they not advertise on cable or TV? research has shown that commercials have little or no impact on a consumers decisions. The exception is when a consumer doesn't know of the existence of a product. I have to say that when I ask most people about D&D they either think its some kind of cult or they have no clue. A single commercial aired on almost prime time TV or Cable would draw in unimaginable numbers of players, but WotC won't do it. Why? because it would cost them more money than they would see from it within a month or two. Shortsighted I know, but that's what modern business is about nowadays.
If you believe that Wizards just flies by the seat of their pants, and just implements things without thinking about it first, try reading this blog post:
community.wizards.com/wotc_cosmicangler/...
I'd say they did a bit of planning before implementing this new community system, and by "a bit" I mean "lots and lots."
And I'm not even happy with the current state of the forums (though I do like the whole "community" thing. I haven't got it all "figured out" yet, but I'm getting there.)
As for 4e, I will always love my BECMI like my eldest child, but 4th edition is freaking awesome. The more I play it, the better it is.
Exactly my point, the company only has its own interests in mind. About the single most important interest a company has is being profitable. Most don't look beyond that. Some (like WotC) grab the quick money without thinking about the impact it will have in the future.
I'm seriously confused how you can possibly believe shelling out money to establish a FREE community website is grabbing at quick money? Sure, it's existance results in a gathering of like-minded individuals in order to share their ideals with one another, but that doesn't anything to bring in money, and other sites also exist for the same purpose, shelling out the money for it isn't needed. What they do get from the website is the ability to get the feel of the community, for the purpose of making a better product... I hardly see wanting to make a better product as grabbing at the quick money ether.
I also fail to see how implementing errata and updates for already published and sold products, again FREE of charge, is grabbing at the quick buck. sure, it's again trying to please the community so they'll come back for more, but thats more then some companies do (only time you'l see a recall on faulty parts is if the error can be life threatening, and thats because a recall is cheaper then a whole lot of lawsuits) and I'd hardly call that "grabbing at the quick money".
Truth told, most of what I see here are people feeling slighted because their own sense of entitlement has not been fulfiled, so they lash out at WotC who has failed to meet their personal expectations, regardless of how those expectations will impact the buisness and/or others.
I can't count how many times I've seen posters say they shouldn't have gone live with this website untill it was ready... But I don't see how that benifits anybody but the louts that don't want to deal with the growing pains of establishing the new community. Not going live in no way benifits anybody, going live does not hurt those who don't want to help, because they don't have to participate, their in no different a position then if the site didn't go live, meanwhile, the rest of us have someplace to post, and can help develope the site into something more to our liking, and WotC can continue to hear feedback, both about their products as well as the community in progress, so as to better develope it to our needs as opposed to what they think our needs are.
And to this very thread, how does Hasbro selling off WotC provide any positive effects? who knows who will buy it, if anyone? If they can't sell it, then what? Will selling it ensure that someone who is more interested in catering to you will buy it over someone else who is even more interested in money and will cut the expenses of the website (why not just lurk on EN world for customer feedback) and don't bother with errata, free web updates and content. Does establishing a new website that is extremely different from the old one, and thus has some problems translating over, really justify the "sell it" attitude thats being demonstrated?
Before you jump on me and start flaming me, I understand that companies need to make money to be viable. I really do, but they need to think ahead a little and quit making these short sighted decisions to grab the cash now, and set up to grab the cash later.
Can you provide some examples of such short sighted decisions to grab the cash now? Cause the way I see it, it's those that are complaining that are short sighted, unable to see past the immediate problems with the website, and unable to look beyond what they've lost from the old boards to what they're set to gain from these new ones.
An example is why do they not advertise on cable or TV? research has shown that commercials have little or no impact on a consumers decisions. The exception is when a consumer doesn't know of the existence of a product. I have to say that when I ask most people about D&D they either think its some kind of cult or they have no clue.
My first assumption would be that erasing the "cult" stigma isn't something one can do with a 30 second commercial, and bringing it to the forefront like that would raise the attention of the very vocal and problematic bigots like Jack T Chick... So, they'd get little to nothing positive from commercials, and they'd get problems from ignorant activist groups... Sorry, what was it you believed they don't use commercials because? On top of that, how would you advertise DnD in a commercial format?
A single commercial aired on almost prime time TV or Cable would draw in unimaginable numbers of players, but WotC won't do it.
No, it wouldn't. you'd get a lot of people who only knew it for it's cult stigma rejecting it. You'd get a lot of people who reject it for it's nerd/geek stigma now making fun of it more vocally (being more in the public eye), and those very few people who are interested and weren't aware of it beforehand and can ignore the now more prominante public ridicule will still not do anything because they can't play the game alone, and if they knew people who played they'd have already been aware of the game and not needed a commercial (at which point even you acknowledge a commercial does nothing).
Why? because it would cost them more money than they would see from it within a month or two. Shortsighted I know, but that's what modern business is about nowadays.
Can you provide evidance that this is in fact the reason and not just your negatively biased assumption conjured up to support your opinion?
Actually its pretty simple to prove. Managers are the ones to make the decisions. No one else can make those kinds of decisions. The delay and then subsequent cancelation of the GT (Game Table) and CV (Character Visualizer) are prime examples.
They have been cancelled?? That's news to me. Could you provide me with a quote, cause last I heard was that they still plan on putting them out, they just are not the prime focus right now.
The decision to use this very unpolished community site instead of one that was pre-made and already very polished and tested is another example. The management didn't say to the IT people you get to choose a new forum package. They shopped around and said 'this one is the cheapest'. Its really obvious when you look at the different clues.
OneSite is actually one of the more expensive places to go to for getting community sites like this built. It is definately not "the cheapest" as you put it. (Note, this info from posters on ENWorld.)
Exactly my point, the company only has its own interests in mind. About the single most important interest a company has is being profitable. Most don't look beyond that. Some (like WotC) grab the quick money without thinking about the impact it will have in the future.
And how is WotC going for a cash grab? I would think that if they were going for a cash grab, they wold have put out a poorly-developed Game Table and Character Visualizer and got people to sign up for them. Instead, they are putting the products for DDI out slowly as they are ready. That is very much *not* the sign of a company looking for a cash grab.
An example is why do they not advertise on cable or TV? research has shown that commercials have little or no impact on a consumers decisions. The exception is when a consumer doesn't know of the existence of a product. I have to say that when I ask most people about D&D they either think its some kind of cult or they have no clue. A single commercial aired on almost prime time TV or Cable would draw in unimaginable numbers of players, but WotC won't do it. Why? because it would cost them more money than they would see from it within a month or two. Shortsighted I know, but that's what modern business is about nowadays.
One thing that you will eventually learn in your business minor is that it is not enough to just get a commercial on TV and have people come and throw money at you. You need to ensure that the market that sees your commercial is receptive to your product and is the market that is likely to partake of what you are trying to sell. To think that a single commercial would draw in "unimaginable numbers of players" is, to be frank, short sighted and naive.
Hasbro, as I understood it at the time, only bought WotC because (1) WotC had practically bankrupted itself in litigation over it's bizarre 'patent' on trading card games (something of a fire sale) and (2) it owned the then-super-popular Pokemon trading card game. D&D? Whazzat?
That 3e, let alone 4e, ever got puplished is a tribute to the determination of the Monte Cooks & Mike Mearls of corporate America. We're lucky that there are just a few of us gaming geeks out there who can actually navigate the realities of the business world a bit.
Sure, it'd be great if there was someone out there who might actually want the D&D property for it's own sake. But I rather doubt there is someone like that, who also has the money and business acumen to make a go of it.
Actually its pretty simple to prove. Managers are the ones to make the decisions. No one else can make those kinds of decisions. The delay and then subsequent cancelation of the GT (Game Table) and CV (Character Visualizer) are prime examples.They have been cancelled?? That's news to me. Could you provide me with a quote, cause last I heard was that they still plan on putting them out, they just are not the prime focus right now.
If someone at WotC has come out and given a firm commitment to releasing the visualizer and game table, can you point out the source please? The last official info I saw was that they weren't actively working on them and there wasn't any confirmation whether or not they ever would either, just the implication that they would be on the list of things for consideration after the GM tools were finished. It'd be nice to know I missed something official and positive for a change on that subject.
Exactly my point, the company only has its own interests in mind. About the single most important interest a company has is being profitable. Most don't look beyond that. Some (like WotC) grab the quick money without thinking about the impact it will have in the future.
I'm seriously confused how you can possibly believe shelling out money to establish a FREE community website is grabbing at quick money? Sure, it's existance results in a gathering of like-minded individuals in order to share their ideals with one another, but that doesn't anything to bring in money, and other sites also exist for the same purpose, shelling out the money for it isn't needed. What they do get from the website is the ability to get the feel of the community, for the purpose of making a better product... I hardly see wanting to make a better product as grabbing at the quick money ether.
First off they link their articles so they can get feedback about the articles and then incorporate it into thier work. This is why they have a community site.
I also fail to see how implementing errata and updates for already published and sold products, again FREE of charge, is grabbing at the quick buck. sure, it's again trying to please the community so they'll come back for more, but thats more then some companies do (only time you'l see a recall on faulty parts is if the error can be life threatening, and thats because a recall is cheaper then a whole lot of lawsuits) and I'd hardly call that "grabbing at the quick money".
The errata is included as part of the monthly 'updates' so they can justify the montly fees that are overpriced.
Truth told, most of what I see here are people feeling slighted because their own sense of entitlement has not been fulfiled, so they lash out at WotC who has failed to meet their personal expectations, regardless of how those expectations will impact the buisness and/or others.
I can't count how many times I've seen posters say they shouldn't have gone live with this website untill it was ready... But I don't see how that benifits anybody but the louts that don't want to deal with the growing pains of establishing the new community. Not going live in no way benifits anybody, going live does not hurt those who don't want to help, because they don't have to participate, their in no different a position then if the site didn't go live, meanwhile, the rest of us have someplace to post, and can help develope the site into something more to our liking, and WotC can continue to hear feedback, both about their products as well as the community in progress, so as to better develope it to our needs as opposed to what they think our needs are.
The choice of using OneSite.com to create the site was the first problem. Not running the new site in parallel with the old site was the second problem. Simple as that. Bad choices by WotC. They don't even seem to follow the known basic design proceedures when developing their software.
Actually if they chose not to go live many would have went to other board like EnWorld, and they probably would have stayed, so going live was their way of keeping people from doing that.
And to this very thread, how does Hasbro selling off WotC provide any positive effects? who knows who will buy it, if anyone? If they can't sell it, then what? Will selling it ensure that someone who is more interested in catering to you will buy it over someone else who is even more interested in money and will cut the expenses of the website (why not just lurk on EN world for customer feedback) and don't bother with errata, free web updates and content. Does establishing a new website that is extremely different from the old one, and thus has some problems translating over, really justify the "sell it" attitude thats being demonstrated?
Before you jump on me and start flaming me, I understand that companies need to make money to be viable. I really do, but they need to think ahead a little and quit making these short sighted decisions to grab the cash now, and set up to grab the cash later.
Can you provide some examples of such short sighted decisions to grab the cash now? Cause the way I see it, it's those that are complaining that are short sighted, unable to see past the immediate problems with the website, and unable to look beyond what they've lost from the old boards to what they're set to gain from these new ones.
An example is why do they not advertise on cable or TV? research has shown that commercials have little or no impact on a consumers decisions. The exception is when a consumer doesn't know of the existence of a product. I have to say that when I ask most people about D&D they either think its some kind of cult or they have no clue.My first assumption would be that erasing the "cult" stigma isn't something one can do with a 30 second commercial, and bringing it to the forefront like that would raise the attention of the very vocal and problematic bigots like Jack T Chick... So, they'd get little to nothing positive from commercials, and they'd get problems from ignorant activist groups... Sorry, what was it you believed they don't use commercials because? On top of that, how would you advertise DnD in a commercial format?
A single commercial aired on almost prime time TV or Cable would draw in unimaginable numbers of players, but WotC won't do it.No, it wouldn't. you'd get a lot of people who only knew it for it's cult stigma rejecting it. You'd get a lot of people who reject it for it's nerd/geek stigma now making fun of it more vocally (being more in the public eye), and those very few people who are interested and weren't aware of it beforehand and can ignore the now more prominante public ridicule will still not do anything because they can't play the game alone, and if they knew people who played they'd have already been aware of the game and not needed a commercial (at which point even you acknowledge a commercial does nothing).
Why? because it would cost them more money than they would see from it within a month or two. Shortsighted I know, but that's what modern business is about nowadays.
Can you provide evidance that this is in fact the reason and not just your negatively biased assumption conjured up to support your opinion?
The facts speak for themselves. They could have done things very differently for just a tiny bit more money, but they chose to save a few cents in order to give us a crappy community site.
The_hated, you're spewing bias in your last post.
WotC is a division of Hasbro. But that is paper and profit distributions. WotC got three lines in the most recent Hasbro annual report, and the words "Dungeons & Dragons" is only mentioned in the description of products WotC makes.
On a day-to-day basis, WotC is run by gamers, designed by gamers, and produced by gamers. We can meet them at conventions, we can play in their games, we can talk with them in chat and in forums.
WotC is a company of people. People whose names we know. That's very uncommon in today's corporate world. Apple users know Steve Jobs, and that's about it. A few people can name a vice president or two. We can name dozens of WotC executives, managers, and employees.
WotC is nothing like what you described.
Ha$bro
Oh yeah. It was T$R, now Ha$bro. So I guess D&D was always a money-grabbing ploy nothing more, right? Right?
First off they link their articles so they can get feedback about the articles and then incorporate it into thier work. This is why they have a community site.
The articles are also free. they had to pay people to write them, they pay to host them online. Whats the point of it all if all they want is quick money? none of it leads to quick money, it leads to consumer satisfaction... which is exactly what you claim they don't care about.
The errata is included as part of the monthly 'updates' so they can justify the montly fees that are overpriced.
What monthly fees? I don't pay any monthly fees, you don't have a DDI icon under your name, so I assume you don't ether (aside from the fact errata have been released for longer then DDI has been active, so it really can't be DDI monthly fees your talking about). So what monthly fees are you talking about, because if it required monthly fees in order to get those errata, we wouldn't have access to them, but we do, so clearly your mistaken (IE errata is not a function of DDI, it is a service they provide for free, to improve their product after release... something no other company I can think of does except to prevent death/injury related lawsuits)
The choice of using OneSite.com to create the site was the first problem.
why? Because the site isn't up to YOUR specs? Who are you?
Not running the new site in parallel with the old site was the second problem.
ROFLMAO! you have seen the complaints about ported information not coming over properly, simply because the BBCode doesn't get translated? think about the complications of porting Data over from one site in use to another site in use as well (IE, merging two identical threads containing different posts after a certain point, chances are, one site's data would get wiped in favour of the others, and that's even worst then whats happened here). Not to mention the community would have two boards to watch instead of one (cause someone might post in ether). Then there is the issue of costs and staff to man both sites. No, THIS (running two sites concurrently) would have been a bad idea. The fact you can't see that shows how your only thinking of what you want, not of whats actually practical.
Simple as that. Bad choices by WotC. They don't even seem to follow the known basic design proceedures when developing their software.
they're only bad choices for accomplishing what you want, not bad business choices in general (caveat, Not claiming all their business choices are good ether, simply that you have demonstrated a tendency to judge business choices based on how it affects you personally, as if your the only one that matters to the company).
Actually if they chose not to go live many would have went to other board like EnWorld, and they probably would have stayed, so going live was their way of keeping people from doing that.
Yes, it was... but if they were just after money, and not out to provide the community with a place to come, why even have a community site. Remember, you said all they want is the money, and they don't care about their customers/fan-base at all... How does setting up a FREE community like this accomplish the quick money? And please remember that bolded underlined word, it is important
The facts speak for themselves. They could have done things very differently for just a tiny bit more money, but they chose to save a few cents in order to give us a crappy community site.
I see no facts, only fear and hate based assumptions. Sure, they could have done things differently, lots of things could have been done differently, but why you think they weren't done differently is largely based a personal sence of entitlement and on the benefits of hindsight and from having no responsibility for the outcome that comes with armchair quarterbacking.
4e seems to be a great addition to the D&D legacy....and the support with the willingness to listen to its fan base only makes it greater.......my only real complaint is of course the fact the online tools arent available yet...there are a lot of folks waiting for the gametable so they can play online campaigns.......but the real aggrivation comes from the fact that wotc is so tight lipped about the progress of said tools...last i heard gametable was being used in inhouse campaigns and everyone was betting on how many times it would crash....that was a LONG TIME AGO........also theres never been an update about the dungeon builder at all....whats the news option under DDI on the D&D website for if not to keep us informed about that which we are all so anxiously awaiting?
Yeah I have no idea what you guys are talking about. WoTC and Hasbro seem to be doing a much better job of running the franchise than TSR.
So I'm happy with it.
Reading most of the bashers points is kind of like this:
MadGamer: Hey D&D makers, you guys who make the best selling and critically acclaimed industry top game, yeah you guys. You're doing it wrong. I'm here telling you on your site that I come to regularly but hate that I know how to do it better.
.............
I'd post more guys, but I have to go run and tell Tom on myspace how to create a popular networking site better because my frequent use of the bulletins there make me an expert on it.
-Rolls eyes-
First off they link their articles so they can get feedback about the articles and then incorporate it into thier work. This is why they have a community site.
The articles are also free. they had to pay people to write them, they pay to host them online. Whats the point of it all if all they want is quick money? none of it leads to quick money, it leads to consumer satisfaction... which is exactly what you claim they don't care about.
Just as a point of fact -- this WotC employee posts independently of work requirement, pay, or other "reward" and quite specifically because she has an interest in, care for, and sense of both loyalty and dedication to the people who invest time, money, and interest in our products.
The reason I chose to become an involved, visible part of our new community is because I happen to believe that a significant segment of people who make our products and services part of their life's entertainment have an interest in engaging and interacting with us, and perhaps even with me (far flung aside from R&D or otherwise 'glamourous' duties as I am).
While there are definitely areas of the company that are responsible for 'official' generation of content, and while it is also true that there are aspects of promotion for those items, it remains that the vast majority of WotC folks visible and interacting here are doing so for very similar reasons as myself.
One of the chief enjoyments of working in this industry is that you have the chance not only to do something you love in an industry you love, but to savor the added delight of being able to interact in meaningful (I hope) ways with those for whom every second of one's daily work are gear toward and purposed to support and entertain... you.
Perhaps the notion that there must always be a cynical/ulterior motive is one that cannot be easily deflected for some, but it is worth pointing out that one's cynicism is not in any manner indicative of more than that one is cynical. In my experience, cynicism is usually little more than bruised idealism; the deeper the bruise the more "hardened" the cynic.
Me? I prefer to think most folks joining us here both know and understand that we're just tickled to pieces to be able to put a place like this online -- for you, for us, and for the opportunity to enjoy it all together.
As far as the game itself goes, the problem is that it's not Dungeons and Dragons. It hasn't been Dungeons and Dragons since WotC purchased the franchise. 3rd and 4th edition bear about as much resemblance to earlier editions as Risk and Trivial Pursuit do to Monopoly. Yeah, there's a board and dice but that's it. I may like Risk more than Monopoly (as I like 3e better than 2e), but that doesn't make it Monopoly. Using the name Dungeons and Dragons for the current editions of the game is a grossly dishonest abuse of the franchise name. So yes, I'd prefer they either produce a real DND game or sell it to someone who will. I'd also prefer they continue to produce 3e material under a different name. Oh, and bring back Alternity! None of those things are going to happen. The Dungeons and Dragons name is worth money and they will continue to slap it on every new fantasy rpg system they come up with until it's not.
As far as the websites go, the forums are complete and utter fail. I hardly ever use them anymore as it's too difficult to navigate and not worth my time. I instead head over to ENWorld where they can actually run a forum. I do love the other features though, and make frequent use of the groups. I was assuming the forums would be fixed but that doesn't appear to be the case, I guess WotC doesn't mind its current form. That's ok. I'll simply start using the WotC site as a home for my groups and find better forums elswhere.
Hey guy$ look! my $ key is broken like Lokiare'$, it'$ funny how the$e thing$ happen.
I mean you can turn anything into a mony grubbing name just by replacing a few letters... lets see.
Macinto$h
Micro$oft
Dungeon$ and Dragon$
World of Darkne$$
Roleplaying Game$
Hey guy$ look! my $ key is broken like Lokiare'$, it'$ funny how the$e thing$ happen.
I mean you can turn anything into a mony grubbing name just by replacing a few letters... lets see.
Macinto$h
Micro$oft
Dungeon$ and Dragon$
World of Darkne$$
Roleplaying Game$
Don't forget that ***** $ally $elling $ea$hell$ down by the $ea$shore. Man I hate her.
Don't forget that ***** $ally $elling $ea$hell$ down by the $ea$shore. Man I hate her.
OMG! I totally forgot about her. $he i$ what$ wrong with the world.
If HASBRO sells WotC or D&D then whomever buys it will have gem on their hands.
I started D&D in 1980-1981. I stand here now as a fan of D&D ever since I first saw those oddly shapped dice way back when. Fourth edition is D&D through and through. So is third and 3.5 and 2nd and 1st AD&D, not to mention the flavors of Basic and the blue box and the white.
As far as the game itself goes, the problem is that it's not Dungeons and Dragons. It hasn't been Dungeons and Dragons since WotC purchased the franchise. 3rd and 4th edition bear about as much resemblance to earlier editions as Risk and Trivial Pursuit do to Monopoly. Yeah, there's a board and dice but that's it. I may like Risk more than Monopoly (as I like 3e better than 2e), but that doesn't make it Monopoly. Using the name Dungeons and Dragons for the current editions of the game is a grossly dishonest abuse of the franchise name. So yes, I'd prefer they either produce a real DND game or sell it to someone who will. I'd also prefer they continue to produce 3e material under a different name. Oh, and bring back Alternity! None of those things are going to happen. The Dungeons and Dragons name is worth money and they will continue to slap it on every new fantasy rpg system they come up with until it's not.
If you like a previous edition, you can still play it. I know I'm skirting a thin line here, but I prefer my new editions to be new. Not just rehashes of old material. I only speak for myself of course.
And another thing, am I seriously the only user on here that likes the new boards? Also, it seems like the dev team (or whomever it is working on these boards) is hearing and responding to a lot of the issues with these very quickly. I mean, they removed the sidebar deals from the thread view days after the new forums went up. And the background is now an off white as well.
Also, quick show of hands...who here plays Dungeons & Dragons with their families (wives, children, neices, nephews, etc.?)
We don't have a hand-in-the-air smilie any more, so:
*show hand*
If you like a previous edition, you can still play it. I know I'm skirting a thin line here, but I prefer my new editions to be new. Not just rehashes of old material. I only speak for myself of course.
And another thing, am I seriously the only user on here that likes the new boards? Also, it seems like the dev team (or whomever it is working on these boards) is hearing and responding to a lot of the issues with these very quickly. I mean, they removed the sidebar deals from the thread view days after the new forums went up. And the background is now an off white as well.
I actually still play 3e, but it really isn't the same game as Dungeons and Dragons. I like 3e better than dnd though. Actually I prefer Alternity to both.
You can't be the only one who likes the new boards, but you're one of the few. Love the groups, hate the forums.
And another thing, am I seriously the only user on here that likes the new boards?
I like them too, so you're not alone. I seriously don't know why everyone is screaming bloody murder over them. Yes, there are things that would be nice to be brought back/ fixed, such as sblock, but it's functional and usable, and with the mounds of new functions like groups, wikis, and blogs, there are now so many more things you can do.
I especially love groups. Finally, a way to run games and, well, groups, without having to put them into the general forum population. No more sifting through every thread looking for it!
As for Hasbro selling off D&D, pray tell why? It's making money, it's selling books, it's got a large community of players. How does DDI not currently having some planned functionality mean that they should sell of the game? It's just a bizzare leap. DDI isn't D&D, so why does it "prove" they are not "worthy" of making D&D?
And who would they sell it to? Paizo? They'd just make a new version of 4E that is essentially a list of houserules. (Badum-tish)
Whitewolf? The game will turn into a game about a party of vampires and werewolves who write in their diaries about how terrible the world is and how mean all the trolls are being to them. (Badum-tish)
Steve Jackson? He'd make everything point buy and easy to abuse without a heavy-handed DM, and require you to assemble any concept from scratch from a list of a billion skills and advantages. (Not really that funny)
I'm really dissapointed with that Steve Jackson one. I could have done a much better job. Maybe make fun of how he'd make a billion expansions...
I like it, Like Lokair said, its a work in progress. But im pretty sure thats also what beta means.
Im sure his definition is a bit tighter then this compulserary open beta.
Ha$bro
Oh yeah. It was T$R, now Ha$bro. So I guess D&D was always a money-grabbing ploy nothing more, right? Right?
Nice slippery slope fallacy! More subtlety would make it less obvious though.
First off they link their articles so they can get feedback about the articles and then incorporate it into thier work. This is why they have a community site.
The articles are also free. they had to pay people to write them, they pay to host them online. Whats the point of it all if all they want is quick money? none of it leads to quick money, it leads to consumer satisfaction... which is exactly what you claim they don't care about.
The articles are not free, you must be a DDI memeber to read them.
The errata is included as part of the monthly 'updates' so they can justify the montly fees that are overpriced.
What monthly fees? I don't pay any monthly fees, you don't have a DDI icon under your name, so I assume you don't ether (aside from the fact errata have been released for longer then DDI has been active, so it really can't be DDI monthly fees your talking about). So what monthly fees are you talking about, because if it required monthly fees in order to get those errata, we wouldn't have access to them, but we do, so clearly your mistaken (IE errata is not a function of DDI, it is a service they provide for free, to improve their product after release... something no other company I can think of does except to prevent death/injury related lawsuits)
The errata is released for free on the website. As a way of justifying the montly updates to the CB and MB which justify the montly fee, the errata are added to the software updates. So in the months that you only get one or two items from Dragon/Dungeon they add some errata in to make the update seem justified.
Otherwise your update list would looke like:
* added new feat
"What? I'm paying $10.00 a month so I can get a feat? That's outrageous"
Instead it looks more like
* added new feat
* fixed another feat that was powercreep
* fixed a class that was powercreep
* fixed a race that was more powerful than elves in 3.5
* fixed a paragon path that was way too overpowered
"Ah look at all those things I'm getting for $10.00 per month, I'm completely satisfied."
The choice of using OneSite.com to create the site was the first problem.
why? Because the site isn't up to YOUR specs? Who are you?
Glad you asked. I'm a soon to be graduate from college with a B. S. in game software development.
I also worked for a year with a website design company where I both designed and programmed websites using HTML, javascript, perl-cgi, perl, cgi-bin, and PHP to create dynamically formatted pages from templates where the information was stored in a MySQL database. There were even pages where non-IT employees could go and update the information on pages using forms that updated the page information in the database.
Now I'm not asking for a site that can do all those things. I'm asking for a site that can live up to basic forum standards which you can see by visiting ANY forum that has been around for more than a few months.
Not running the new site in parallel with the old site was the second problem.
ROFLMAO! you have seen the complaints about ported information not coming over properly, simply because the BBCode doesn't get translated? think about the complications of porting Data over from one site in use to another site in use as well (IE, merging two identical threads containing different posts after a certain point, chances are, one site's data would get wiped in favour of the others, and that's even worst then whats happened here). Not to mention the community would have two boards to watch instead of one (cause someone might post in ether). Then there is the issue of costs and staff to man both sites. No, THIS (running two sites concurrently) would have been a bad idea. The fact you can't see that shows how your only thinking of what you want, not of whats actually practical.
This once again shows that you are ignorant of what programming is required or even the basic process's or definitions of software development.
I was talking about running the old forums seperate from the new forums. Therefore when someone posted on the old forums, the post would not show up on the new forums, and vice versa. It also would not have been running two sites concurrently. It would have been running one site and getting the bugs out of a smaller beta both running on the same server. So essentially they would be the same site. The cost wouldn't have been any more than it was because OneSite.com is the developer for the new community site.
Simple as that. Bad choices by WotC. They don't even seem to follow the known basic design proceedures when developing their software.
they're only bad choices for accomplishing what you want, not bad business choices in general (caveat, Not claiming all their business choices are good ether, simply that you have demonstrated a tendency to judge business choices based on how it affects you personally, as if your the only one that matters to the company).
I judge bad choices based on not only how they affect me, but by all of the other posters that I see that have many complaints about the new community site. In addition I look toward industry standards and find that WotC is lacking.
Actually if they chose not to go live many would have went to other board like EnWorld, and they probably would have stayed, so going live was their way of keeping people from doing that.
Yes, it was... but if they were just after money, and not out to provide the community with a place to come, why even have a community site. Remember, you said all they want is the money, and they don't care about their customers/fan-base at all... How does setting up a FREE community like this accomplish the quick money? And please remember that bolded underlined word, it is important
As I said before the community site is so they can link articles and talk about products. It is a form of advertisement, and the cost is minimal at best since they are already paying for the server for the WotC website. This just tacks on a few more MB of bandwidth per day, probably well under their quota.
The facts speak for themselves. They could have done things very differently for just a tiny bit more money, but they chose to save a few cents in order to give us a crappy community site.
I see no facts, only fear and hate based assumptions. Sure, they could have done things differently, lots of things could have been done differently, but why you think they weren't done differently is largely based a personal sence of entitlement and on the benefits of hindsight and from having no responsibility for the outcome that comes with armchair quarterbacking.
My opinions are based on not only my personal experience, but on my experience as a programmer and a web designer. I also base it on what I see on other websites. WotC is falling further and further behind and not even maintaining the basic standards set forth by EnWorld and Pen and Paper games and many other roleplaying and D&D sites.
I'll come back later and respond to everyone else posts as I'm out of time and going to be late for a doctors appointment.
I'd like to see the creator and proud member of "Dark Spire" and that horrendous "Friar's Almanac" you're so proud of do ANYTHING half as good as WotC, let alone better.
I'll wait.
The errata is released for free on the website. As a way of justifying the montly updates to the CB and MB which justify the montly fee, the errata are added to the software updates.
really, then what was their excuse for releasing errata prior to the existence of DDI? your assigning a highly cynical reason for a reasonable action.
Glad you asked. I'm a soon to be graduate from college with a B. S. in game software development.
I also worked for a year
Your a graduate of an unrelated field... with a whole one year experience in a single aspect of the web design (not hardware, not networking, not business, just writing the code, and form code at that, not even forum or community page code)... WOW, you must be a master, with far greater knowledge on the subject then everyone else (:rollseyes
, including the staff at onesite whom you claimed was a mistake to use. I asked why onesite was a bad corporate decision, and you give me this:
Now I'm not asking for a site that can do all those things. I'm asking for a site that can live up to basic forum standards which you can see by visiting ANY forum that has been around for more than a few months.
Doesn't really answer the question "why was onesite a bad corporate decision? Just tells me again what you want... who are you to always get what you want?
What basic standards has it not lived up to? I have visited quite a few forums, not all game related, and while some have features that are absent from these boards, those missing features are not standard on all boards.
I also note the "...that has been around for more then a few months" caveat that your granting to other sites but denying the benefit of for this one. Double standard.
I was talking about running the old forums separate from the new forums. Therefore when someone posted on the old forums, the post would not show up on the new forums, and vice versa.
I was also talking about this same thing... Unless your suggesting they run both sites indefinitely, they would have to combine the content of both forums eventually... How would you suggest doing that, for two separate sites that both started with the same data but went their separate ways... without losing anything in the process? How would you direct individuals to the one site that didn't get the dnd forums redirect? Or would that site just remain hidden from everyone? Who would be maintaining these sites, taking care of back-up's and other problems that arise (even I know a website with as much traffic as these aren't a fire and forget kind of deal)? Can their current infrastructure handle both websites, or would additional hardware be needed?
These are just a few of the questions (some of which I asked in my last post) you have yet to answer with your 1 year of infinite wisdom. And to think, an ignorant such as myself came up with this list, imagine what someone who knew what they were talking about could devise... (Be careful who you call ignorant).
It also would not have been running two sites concurrently. It would have been running one site and getting the bugs out of a smaller beta both running on the same server.
you do know what concurrent means?
As I said before the community site is so they can link articles and talk about products. It is a form of advertisement, and the cost is minimal at best since they are already paying for the server for the WotC website. This just tacks on a few more MB of bandwidth per day, probably well under their quota.
More assumptions.
My opinions are based on not only my personal experience, but on my experience as a programmer and a web designer. I also base it on what I see on other websites. WotC is falling further and further behind and not even maintaining the basic standards set forth by EnWorld and Pen and Paper games and many other roleplaying and D&D sites.
Ah, so it isn't the basic standards of web design you were talking about earlier, but the basic standards of your choice in websites. You see, my personal experience tells me that this site is still experiencing growing pains, but is at least functional for the time being. the management has shown a willingness to improve the site and it has only been up for a short time (In which time they have fixed a number of issues, including an issue with some threads being corrupted during the port over, the onesite issue, the sidebar, the colour scheme, etc).
I think It's time for me to use the ignore feature, else I'll find myself posting something I can get banned for.
I'd like to see the creator and proud member of "Dark Spire" and that horrendous "Friar's Almanac" you're so proud of do ANYTHING half as good as WotC, let alone better.
I'll wait.
We already have. We have a free magazine that accepts articles from everyone, that is bug free, and doesn't purport to be anything but what it is: A free source of roleplaying information.
I'm sorry to say, I had high hopes for WotC, but all they seem to do is mess up lately. Maybe its the economy, maybe its the fans themselves. More likely its the management stifling the creativity. I mean I'd rather have a well balanced well though out expansion book every three months. Instead of an unbalanced quickly hacked together expansion book every month. Its not like I'm going to buy it just because its a WotC product. I'm going to buy a book because it actually appears to have something valuable in it. I'm probably in the minority though.
Also I'm not easily baited. You'll have to try harder than that.
If I had the time, I'd reproduce the WotC site and make it work how its supposed to, unfortunately I have a job and college as well as family responsiblities to worry about.
The errata is released for free on the website. As a way of justifying the montly updates to the CB and MB which justify the montly fee, the errata are added to the software updates.
really, then what was their excuse for releasing errata prior to the existence of DDI? your assigning a highly cynical reason for a reasonable action.
If you'll look at the amount of errata released before DDI and the amount after you'll easily come to the conclusion that there is far more errata being released on a regular basis. Perhaps I'm just expressing my opinions. Neither of our opinions on this matter are provable.
Glad you asked. I'm a soon to be graduate from college with a B. S. in game software development.
I also worked for a year
Your a graduate of an unrelated field... with a whole one year experience in a single aspect of the web design (not hardware, not networking, not business, just writing the code, and form code at that, not even forum or community page code)... WOW, you must be a master, with far greater knowledge on the subject then everyone else (:rollseyes
I hardly think game software development and roleplaying games are unrelated. They both have basic principles that must be followed for game balance. The only real difference is that roleplaying games must maintain simple math where computer games can be fantastically complex with math.
Also the list you cut off is pretty much how a forum works. So once again you ignore the obvious and don't seem to know much about web programming.
Its not so much that I am some kind of master (nice fallacy with sarcasm though, I bow to you) as it is that I frequent forums and websites on a regular basis and have the basic cognitive ability to compare them against each other.
Its more likely that OneSite.com is hosting this community site and WotC doesn't really have access to it, so they have to tel OneSite.com what they want fixed and OneSite.com fixes it when they want. Either way most of these fixes could have been done in a few minutes. Rather than weeks.
Now I'm not asking for a site that can do all those things. I'm asking for a site that can live up to basic forum standards which you can see by visiting ANY forum that has been around for more than a few months.
Doesn't really answer the question "why was onesite a bad corporate decision? Just tells me again what you want... who are you to always get what you want?
What basic standards has it not lived up to? I have visited quite a few forums, not all game related, and while some have features that are absent from these boards, those missing features are not standard on all boards.
I also note the "...that has been around for more then a few months" caveat that your granting to other sites but denying the benefit of for this one. Double standard.
OneSite was a bad decision because they don't produce quality forums. The only thing they have done of note was set up a community page for a game, they advertise that on their front page.
I really don't care what I get. I'm doing this on behalf of all the people that take a look and walk away disgusted. They choose not to be vocal. I choose to be vocal and a proponent for change.
Some features on boards are not standard, however many features are. For one the ability to see posts while you reply is almost standard. The ability to change the text color, size, font, and background colors in themes is standard. There are many more standard features this board is missing like an advanced search that lets you search by author and section. The ability to use a browsers built in spellcheck rather than having to hit a freakin' annoying button each time.
Just because there are a million sites on the web done badly does not mean that we should use it as some kind of standard, thus my caveat. Both OneSite.com and WotC have been around for awhile they have no excuse for continuing to make bad development decisions.
I was talking about running the old forums separate from the new forums. Therefore when someone posted on the old forums, the post would not show up on the new forums, and vice versa.
I was also talking about this same thing... Unless your suggesting they run both sites indefinitely, they would have to combine the content of both forums eventually... How would you suggest doing that, for two separate sites that both started with the same data but went their separate ways... without losing anything in the process? How would you direct individuals to the one site that didn't get the dnd forums redirect? Or would that site just remain hidden from everyone? Who would be maintaining these sites, taking care of back-up's and other problems that arise (even I know a website with as much traffic as these aren't a fire and forget kind of deal)? Can their current infrastructure handle both websites, or would additional hardware be needed?
These are just a few of the questions (some of which I asked in my last post) you have yet to answer with your 1 year of infinite wisdom. And to think, an ignorant such as myself came up with this list, imagine what someone who knew what they were talking about could devise... (Be careful who you call ignorant).
The old forum would have the old information. the new forum would start out fresh, new, and empty. That way there wouldn't be duplicate data. When the time came they would migrate the data in the same way they did the first time using scripts to reformat each entry to match the new format.
At worst there would be a miniscule slowdown while running both sites on the same server however I don't think it would have much impact.
If they did run them at the same time it would be a good indicator of how far along they were. They could see who preferred which board and when the majority preferred the new community site, they could migrate over. As it is people are just silently leaving and checking back every few months. In the meantime they are puttiong down roots in other boards like pen and paper games, and EnWorld.
I also didn't call you ignorant. I said you didn't know. There is a difference.
It also would not have been running two sites concurrently. It would have been running one site and getting the bugs out of a smaller beta both running on the same server.
you do know what concurrent means?
Do you? Running two sites off of two servers would be more expensive and time consuming, however I was suggesting running an empty beta on the same server as the old forums. Very easy.
As I said before the community site is so they can link articles and talk about products. It is a form of advertisement, and the cost is minimal at best since they are already paying for the server for the WotC website. This just tacks on a few more MB of bandwidth per day, probably well under their quota.
More assumptions.
You are assuming they are assumptions.
My opinions are based on not only my personal experience, but on my experience as a programmer and a web designer. I also base it on what I see on other websites. WotC is falling further and further behind and not even maintaining the basic standards set forth by EnWorld and Pen and Paper games and many other roleplaying and D&D sites.
Ah, so it isn't the basic standards of web design you were talking about earlier, but the basic standards of your choice in websites. You see, my personal experience tells me that this site is still experiencing growing pains, but is at least functional for the time being. the management has shown a willingness to improve the site and it has only been up for a short time (In which time they have fixed a number of issues, including an issue with some threads being corrupted during the port over, the onesite issue, the sidebar, the colour scheme, etc).
I think It's time for me to use the ignore feature, else I'll find myself posting something I can get banned for.
Growing pains? Really? could you be more vague? The 'functional' you speak of is making many people not want to use the forum section of this site. It is hard to navigate and hard to use, it hurts the eyes and you have to work around many many things to get what you want from the site. Its akin to having a bike with octogonal tires, its possible to ride, but why would anyone choose it over a bike with round tires.
The management hasn't shown a single thing. I haven't even seen them on the boards in the past few months (I could be wrong, but probably not). The only improvements I've seen was the removal of the sidebar. Other than that I haven't seen a lick of work done.
You can use the ignore feature, but it won't work, you'll get a big red square over my posts and you know you'll click on it after you see others replying to it.
I think It's time for me to use the ignore feature, else I'll find myself posting something I can get banned for.
For anyone interested in knowing how to do this:
- Click on the avatar of the member you wish to ignore.
- On the page that loads, under their avatar, click on "Block Member"
- When you see: "Are you sure you want to add this user to your blocked user list? Click here to proceed." go ahead and click there.
- Wa-laa! You will no longer see their posts.
Unfortunately, you still see that they posted, every time, along with this:
The contents of this post have been hidden for this blocked user.
You can manage your blocked users list here
Additionally, the member block does not prevent you from seeing their posts in quotes when other people quote them.
I think It's time for me to use the ignore feature, else I'll find myself posting something I can get banned for.
For anyone interested in knowing how to do this:
- Click on the avatar of the member you wish to ignore.
- On the page that loads, under their avatar, click on "Block Member"
- When you see: "Are you sure you want to add this user to your blocked user list? Click here to proceed." go ahead and click there.
- Wa-laa! You will no longer see their posts.
Unfortunately, you still see that they posted, every time, along with this:
The contents of this post have been hidden for this blocked user.
You can manage your blocked users list hereAdditionally, the member block does not prevent you from seeing their posts in quotes when other people quote them.
nor does it hide their oversized sigs.
@seeker I tried for a bit, but i could not take it any longer, i had to see what wrongness they were posting!
nor does it hide their oversized sigs.
That has a link to a site for player created content, that is horrible and poorly executed, which makes me wonder where they get the idea that WoTC makes crap. I mean really, it's pretty low end, low quality. And I think they actually want to charge for it. I only looked a the previews. Well the ones that worked. Some didn't, and some had links that didn't work.
To bad that the site isn't working right, your basic site functionality.
How I figure it, thier constant bashing of DnD and WoTC is their marketing strategy to drive sales to their site. The one were everything looks like it was made during the 90s zine craze.
@seeker I tried for a bit, but i could not take it any longer, i had to see what wrongness they were posting!
Just be strong.
@seeker I tried for a bit, but i could not take it any longer, i had to see what wrongness they were posting!
Just be strong.
but there is a post above this one. and he said something... I must resist...
@seeker I tried for a bit, but i could not take it any longer, i had to see what wrongness they were posting!
Just be strong.but there is a post above this one. and he said something... I must resist...
It's just gibberish, my child. Lay your head down, and dream of natural 20s.
I'd like to see the creator and proud member of "Dark Spire" and that horrendous "Friar's Almanac" you're so proud of do ANYTHING half as good as WotC, let alone better.
I'll wait.
We already have. We have a free magazine that accepts articles from everyone, that is bug free, and doesn't purport to be anything but what it is: A free source of roleplaying information.
...
If I had the time, I'd reproduce the WotC site and make it work how its supposed to, unfortunately I have a job and college as well as family responsiblities to worry about.
No, what you made is not bug free. I'm pretty sure you could turn in your Friar's Almanac with the Cash for Clunkers program. It is horrendous. I'd stop people from getting it for free via that link, thats how bad it is. Anyone associated with that getting publicly released doesn't know the first thing about anything you pretend to be superior at.
The thing is, I'm not trying to be rude. Just trying to get that to sink in.
Wow, if that wasn't an attack on me personally I don't know what was. Ding * report *
I'd like to see the creator and proud member of "Dark Spire" and that horrendous "Friar's Almanac" you're so proud of do ANYTHING half as good as WotC, let alone better.
I'll wait.
We already have. We have a free magazine that accepts articles from everyone, that is bug free, and doesn't purport to be anything but what it is: A free source of roleplaying information.
...
If I had the time, I'd reproduce the WotC site and make it work how its supposed to, unfortunately I have a job and college as well as family responsiblities to worry about.
No, what you made is not bug free. I'm pretty sure you could turn in your Friar's Almanac with the Cash for Clunkers program. It is horrendous. I'd stop people from getting it for free via that link, thats how bad it is. Anyone associated with that getting publicly released doesn't know the first thing about anything you pretend to be superior at.
The thing is, I'm not trying to be rude. Just trying to get that to sink in.
Really, can you actually point out what was 'not bug free' about it? No actually I think you are trying to be rude. The problem is I don't value your opinion and therefore your insults don't affect me in any way. Unless you can point out specifics your wasting your breath (or in this case your typing effort).
Really, can you actually point out what was 'not bug free' about it? No actually I think you are trying to be rude. The problem is I don't value your opinion and therefore your insults don't affect me in any way. Unless you can point out specifics your wasting your breath (or in this case your typing effort).
Alright, you asked, and unlike your biased attacks against WotC, I can deliver. Let us look at Friar's Almanac on a point by point basis, the entire time remembering that the guy who made this attacked WotC on everything and says he could do it better:
-Layout/Image: Horribly laid out. Image is amateurish. Looks like a three year old with publisher did it. (Remember, you said you can do better than WotC)
-Brand Image: Seeking for ads way too much, over confidence in self, attacking proven industry companies. Some pages mostly empty show a lack of concern for reader's time and interest. (Remember, you said you can do better than WotC)
-Content: Titling is badly done. Interview that is available anywhere for free is your main draw. Followed by a badly written bit of flavor text. 2 pages dedicated to a ridiculous song, possibly also written by a toddler. More bad flavor text. Section on subsidence contradicts itself two paragraphs apart and is badly written. I could keep going, but this piece of crap isn't worth it. However, of note is the two articles reviewing the DDI online tools. Your main problem seems to be that it doesn't incorporate third party material into the tools. Well, duh. (Remember, you said you can do better than WotC)
A simple two second look at this immediately leaves the viewer with the impression of amateur and incompetent at publishing. A closer look shows lack of a Editor or Fact-checker, even just a friend to help out for free.
Now, normaly speaking, that would be fine. Lots of us individuals put out fastly put together stuff for use more than for publishing. But you put it on a website for RPG download pdf publishing and constantly discuss how you are better than WotC. This is what makes it garbage.
Lastly, it is also good to note that you constantly say that WotC is only out for cash. I think that the following review another user put up on one of your purchasable pdfs states volumes about your own hypocricy: "Product Description says: "This module includes detailed battle maps and unique extensive encounters." When you purchase you receive this note: "If you are interested in purchasing a printed copy email --- . Printed copies include full size battle mats." The PDF does not contain battle maps ,as stated in the description. I did not purchase the PDF so that I could purchase the printed copy."
Anyone following your posts everywhere on the site can see thru your thin veil of hypocricy. You constantly state things like "I'm a net guru" and "I'm an experienced programmer" and "I could do better," yet the only things that you have been verified to of done, all suck. Prove me wrong.
So many people ganging up on me. Wow you all must really love WotC to keep blindly following them like this.
I've been nice and polite. Many of you seem to be on the verge of cyberbullying and that is a violation of the ToU/EULA. I don't have time to respond to everyone. If you want to criticise my work please do so in a manner that does not violate the ToU.
Really, lets see a link. I'm having trouble finding any such art on the site.
I've removed content from this thread because inapproriate content and baiting are Code of Conduct violations. You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg....
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Rumplestix and dane_mcardy,
jat and the_hated are right. If you want to critique lokiare's work, go to his blog.
lokiare,
If you think someobody violated the terms of use, you can report the post. Telling them they are violating the terms of use isn't productive and makes you seem a bit pasive aggressive.
Moreover, one need not be a fanboy of Wizards to criticize your magazine.
-wrecan
Rumplestix and dane_mcardy,
jat and the_hated are right. If you want to critique lokiare's work, go to his blog.
lokiare,
If you think someobody violated the terms of use, you can report the post. Telling them they are violating the terms of use isn't productive and makes you seem a bit pasive aggressive.
Moreover, one need not be a fanboy of Wizards to criticize your magazine.
-wrecan
Then perhaps he should stop promoting his stuff in threads as examples of how much better he is and that it's proof on how much WoTC sucks.
I don't have a problem with someone not liking WoTC other then why come here and make a sport out of attacking WoTC.
But I get your point and take it.
Really, lets see a link. I'm having trouble finding any such art on the site.
Search for stock art and look for black and white. Then you have to click on the pdf preview and you might see one of the pictures I used.
Rumplestix and dane_mcardy,
jat and the_hated are right. If you want to critique lokiare's work, go to his blog.
lokiare,
If you think someobody violated the terms of use, you can report the post. Telling them they are violating the terms of use isn't productive and makes you seem a bit pasive aggressive.
Moreover, one need not be a fanboy of Wizards to criticize your magazine.
-wrecan
thank you for notifying me. I did report several posts for posting copyrighted materials. However I prefer to read and poke holes in peoples arguments rather than report them every third post.
Rumplestix and dane_mcardy,
jat and the_hated are right. If you want to critique lokiare's work, go to his blog.
lokiare,
If you think someobody violated the terms of use, you can report the post. Telling them they are violating the terms of use isn't productive and makes you seem a bit pasive aggressive.
Moreover, one need not be a fanboy of Wizards to criticize your magazine.
-wrecan
Then perhaps he should stop promoting his stuff in threads as examples of how much better he is and that it's proof on how much WoTC sucks.I don't have a problem with someone not liking WoTC other then why come here and make a sport out of attacking WoTC.
But I get your point and take it.
Where did I promote my 'stuff' as better than WotC. I said I COULD do better, not that I WAS doing better. I also don't 'attack' WotC. I make statements that are filled with examples and facts. Unless of course I'm being sarcastic in which case I use [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags for the most part.
Also everyone here attacking me and my work have pretty much admitted to being WotC fanboys by the way they defend WotC products and materials.
People really need to read and think about the comments their responding to. I've observed this thread (and others) over the last few days and it is apparent that some posters are deliberately baiting. Now the baiters are being clever enough not to break any rules but they are still being very successful in getting responses.
My point?
IGNORE THEM!
Some people get off on being the centre of attention and the best way they can do that is to be adversarial. Make it less fun for them and eventually they'll just slink away.
I of course have learned my lesson and will not post another idea on these forums again.
It is a bad idea to post anything on a public board that you do not wish to be public domain.
It isn't just this site, but any site that you should apply this to.
Rumplestix and dane_mcardy,
jat and the_hated are right. If you want to critique lokiare's work, go to his blog.
lokiare,
If you think someobody violated the terms of use, you can report the post. Telling them they are violating the terms of use isn't productive and makes you seem a bit pasive aggressive.
Moreover, one need not be a fanboy of Wizards to criticize your magazine.
-wrecan
My apologies.
Post 83 was by dane_mcardy and it quoted Herrozerro. Herrozerro's post, number 82, had an odd quoting format. There was a quote from lokiare at four something inside the quote box and then there was a quote from lokiare in quotation marks and not specifically attributed to lokiare. Looking back I found that it was at something like 1220 am or 0020 mil time. In the form it was posted I did not recognize this as being a quote from lokiare and thought that Herrozerro was making the same claim that lokiare had in the other thread.
Due to complaints received about this thread, I've closed it. The thread will be reviewed to determine if it should be permanently closed, re-opened, and/or a new thread or threads created in its place.