Is there any truth to that? Has the stingy and ridiculous character quota limit of twenty been raised to a more reasonable one hundred?
It should be unlimited, but one hundred is a good start.
Regards,
Don (Greyson)
Joe
Some people like to experiment with builds or keep copies of their characters at each level for reference, and that can easily lead to over 20. It's sad that we can't do that with the new CB.
Though to be honest I can't really experiment properly with EITHER of my main characters in the new CB due to obvious bugs or missing items.
No one "needs" ANY characters.
I beg to differ, some people do "need" characters, and plenty of them. ;)
Some people like to experiment with builds or keep copies of their characters at each level for reference, and that can easily lead to over 20. It's sad that we can't do that with the new CB.
I understand experimentation. I do this often enough myself. But why would anyone need a copy of every level of their character's advancement? I don't personally see a benefit there.
Though to be honest I can't really experiment properly with EITHER of my main characters in the new CB due to obvious bugs or missing items.
Fair point. I hope they resolve these issues soon enough.
Joe
How many campaigns are you guys playing in that you need to keep copies of more than 20 characters? I run a weekly campaign and keep a copy of each of my 5 player's characters as well as 9 other characters of my own, only two of which I need to update on a regular basis(every two to three weeks).
I DM. (and use OCB)
I like to keep a copy of each character at each level as they progress.
So far, I've got 45 PCs saved. Then, there are all the NPCs I've statted out for fun.
Then, since I like to hand out treasure and magic item cards during the game, I create them under blank characters per session, and save those.
So, I've got a whole lot saved, and it makes managing my campaign much easier. I can access anything I want at the drop of a hat. I also have a historical record of everything.
I could save them as PDFs, but with OCB I never needed to.
How many campaigns are you guys playing in that you need to keep copies of more than 20 characters? I run a weekly campaign and keep a copy of each of my 5 player's characters as well as 9 other characters of my own, only two of which I need to update on a regular basis(every two to three weeks).
I DM. (and use OCB)
I like to keep a copy of each character at each level as they progress.
So far, I've got 45 PCs saved. Then, there are all the NPCs I've statted out for fun.
Then, since I like to hand out treasure and magic item cards during the game, I create them under blank characters per session, and save those.
So, I've got a whole lot saved, and it makes managing my campaign much easier. I can access anything I want at the drop of a hat. I also have a historical record of everything.
I could save them as PDFs, but with OCB I never needed to.
Fair enough. I'd personally like to see the completion of more DM tools to allow you to keep track of and print out NPCs and magic items so you won't have to use the character builder for such purposes. But again, why keep every level of your character? Both the OCB and LCB have a record of every change made and when it was changed.
You might need to re-design the dB a little, but you could simply store the differences for each level after the first and have much, much reduced storage concerns over 25*30 full characters for the cost of a little math at run-time.
Once upon a time, I could store as many characters as I wished, notwithstanding others' concerns of how I wish to run my games. Now, this has been artificially hamstrung.
*I find I'm saying that a lot recently.
Maybe if you could have 25 characters saved, with up to 30 different-level versions of each one?
You might need to re-design the dB a little, but you could simply store the differences for each level after the first and have much, much reduced storage concerns over 25*30 full characters for the cost of a little math at run-time.
Sure... but why would you need this?
Or you could try the post above yours?
Because everyone else who's been saying they have bajillions of characters has been indicating that they have multiple copies of the same character, one for each level?
Right. Why? I'm genuinely curious why anyone would need a copy of their character at every level.
Or you could try the post above yours?
You mean the post by Kalex_the_Omen? In which he says this:
I also wonder about the practice of saving characters at each level. With no level drains in the game I can't see a compelling reason to keep old versions of a character.
I am contemplating getting a D&Di membership and was curious if I could save my player's characters if they don't have a membership (at least to just print them out).
I also figured my wife would be able to save her characters on the same account too? (sorry, I tried to do as much research on this before coming to the forums).
You mean the post by Kalex_the_Omen? In which he says this:
No.
The post above the one I was replying to, not some random thing you picked off of the previous page.
The one where DMaple said:
The old character builder let you look at your character at earlier levels (the new one lacks this functionality*), hence there would be more of a need to have different version saved now than before. If that's what people desired.
*I find I'm saying that a lot recently.
You mean the post by Kalex_the_Omen? In which he says this:
No.
The post above the one I was replying to, not some random thing you picked off of the previous page.
The one where DMaple said:The old character builder let you look at your character at earlier levels (the new one lacks this functionality*), hence there would be more of a need to have different version saved now than before. If that's what people desired.
*I find I'm saying that a lot recently.
Ah, right. I sometimes forget that the rest of you view the forums bass ackwards. You mean Nexxus_DM's post in which he says this:
I DM. (and use OCB)
I like to keep a copy of each character at each level as they progress.
So far, I've got 45 PCs saved. Then, there are all the NPCs I've statted out for fun.
Then, since I like to hand out treasure and magic item cards during the game, I create them under blank characters per session, and save those.
So, I've got a whole lot saved, and it makes managing my campaign much easier. I can access anything I want at the drop of a hat. I also have a historical record of everything.
I could save them as PDFs, but with OCB I never needed to.
Tell me again, where he says WHY he needs to keep a copy of each character at each level as they progress?
Or perhaps you mean DMaples, where he says:
The old character builder let you look at your character at earlier levels (the new one lacks this functionality), hence there would be more of a need to have different version saved now than before. If that's what people desired.
And again, my questions remains unanswered. Perhaps you like the fact that he mentions that some functionality of the previous CB let people view their character at any level. I wasn't aware of any such thing, but even if it does exist, that still doesn't answer my question... Which is simply, WHY?
I also wonder about the practice of saving characters at each level. With no level drains in the game I can't see a compelling reason to keep old versions of a character.
There are no level drains in *your* game. Just as, I'm sure, there are no Turn Rock to Mud spells in a *typical* rules as written games. Some play the game differently.
Some of us also like to reference old characters for fiction that is being written.
Some like to do it because it's easy and available.
Some like to have a clear record of progress, just because they like to.
Some people also like to track NPCs this way, and fully flesh them out. Some like to partially build NPCs and store them in an easy location. Hence multiples upon multiples, which we could store before, and access easily, to our heart's content.
There are many reasons, which vary from user to user, to have multiple copies of a PC or NPC, and many more than 20 as a base. There are very few reasons why it cannot be made available, either online, or as an ability to export and store the XML file locally, and reliably reimport the information if required or simply desired.
Then, of course, there is the ability to back up the information which would be really nice. (Talking export/import here) Given the WoTC server issues, I do worry about building PCs/NPCs and the data vanishing into the ether because of a crash. I know I back up my data, I have faith in my backups and don't want to one day try to access my campaign info only to find it wiped...sorry went off topic a bit there...
Simply being able to reliably import and export the xml files would solve all of this.
I like to build a lot of characters, just to see how they come together at different levels. I don't have characters at every level, but I do have a lot of characters at 1, 8, 12, or 16 because those are the "milestone" levels.
I also wonder about the practice of saving characters at each level. With no level drains in the game I can't see a compelling reason to keep old versions of a character.
A very creative DM could make you relive(re-play) something as a flash back where you could change things, use it as a plot devise later on to explain a black out when you get your memories back at a later date, or any number of other in game details.
How many campaigns are you guys playing in that you need to keep copies of more than 20 characters?
Maybe some people just like making characters and want to save them for later reference? Character building can be a fun activity on its own, even if you never play the character, just look at the CharOp page...
Indeed. Not that the OCB is much good for CharOp work anyway, since it lacks the text summary function of the CBC, which allows for easy posting to the forums.
Very true regretably...
DONT ASK ME WHY IT DOESNT MATTER WHY
I agree that the limit should be increased. I mean, there's little reason not to (my guess is that it's an attempt to limit account sharing rather than any techincal limitation).
However, I don't think "Why do you care why I want this feature? Just give it to me!" isn't really a productive conversation.
I agree that the limit should be increased. I mean, there's little reason not to (my guess is that it's an attempt to limit account sharing rather than any techincal limitation).
However, I don't think "Why do you care why I want this feature? Just give it to me!" isn't really a productive conversation.
Yeah, I should have expanded that a little further, but didn't due to typing from my iPod instead of a real keyboard. What I meant was that telling the people who have already indicated that the limit is causing a problem for them "Why do you need more than 20 characters anyways? 20 should be plenty for anyone," is problematic. To make it worse, when they come and give some of their reasons (ie having characters available at multiple levels) they get the response: "That's a silly reason, who would ever want to do that?" I was trying to point out that just because some users pattern of use of the CB does not use more than 20 characters does not mean that the problem is how the people who use more than 20 characters use it.
Again, a big part of the problem is that WotC already allowed us to establish a pattern of use with the CBC (where I could store a few million characters if I really wanted to without filling my hdd), and then severly curtailed it with the change. They let us get used to having functionally unlimited storage for a couple of years and then dropped it down to 20. Bad move.
Only possible answer that is both honest and completely definitive: Because it gives me enjoyment to have it.
And enjoyment is, after all, the sole purpose of D&D in the first place.
Still, even I think that a 20 character limit is arbitrary and unnecessarily low. The amount of data for a single character is pretty small, and raising the limit to 100 should not cause a significant problem for their servers. This seems even worse in light of the fact that they have still not properly implemented an export feature (yes, I know there is a workaround, I've used it).
Then, since I like to hand out treasure and magic item cards during the game, I create them under blank characters per session, and save those.
This I don't understand at all. Do you not realize that you can print items from the Compendium?
Maybe if you could have 25 characters saved, with up to 30 different-level versions of each one?
You might need to re-design the dB a little, but you could simply store the differences for each level after the first and have much, much reduced storage concerns over 25*30 full characters for the cost of a little math at run-time.
Sure... but why would you need this?
Quick answer: Nobody NEEDS this. D&D is not air, water, food, or shelter. The very playing of D&D is a luxury.
This whole thing is about what people WANT. Several others have already stated why they would want this, and my reasons are largely the same... Because I like it!
So don't try to turn this into a discussion of "needs", because that's not what it is.
So don't try to turn this into a discussion of "needs", because that's not what it is.
It is if you would like any chance of it being implemented.
Otherwise, it will go to the big pile of "Its nice, will be done when there is peace on earth"
I agree that the limit should be increased. I mean, there's little reason not to (my guess is that it's an attempt to limit account sharing rather than any techincal limitation).
However, I don't think "Why do you care why I want this feature? Just give it to me!" isn't really a productive conversation.
Yeah, I should have expanded that a little further, but didn't due to typing from my iPod instead of a real keyboard. What I meant was that telling the people who have already indicated that the limit is causing a problem for them "Why do you need more than 20 characters anyways? 20 should be plenty for anyone," is problematic. To make it worse, when they come and give some of their reasons (ie having characters available at multiple levels) they get the response: "That's a silly reason, who would ever want to do that?" I was trying to point out that just because some users pattern of use of the CB does not use more than 20 characters does not mean that the problem is how the people who use more than 20 characters use it.
Again, a big part of the problem is that WotC already allowed us to establish a pattern of use with the CBC (where I could store a few million characters if I really wanted to without filling my hdd), and then severly curtailed it with the change. They let us get used to having functionally unlimited storage for a couple of years and then dropped it down to 20. Bad move.
Fair enough. I agree with you. I think it's important to note that it's not Wizard's employees giving these responses either. It's some dude on the internet with little power over the decision making processes over at WotC.
I actually have faith that the limit will be raised. Maybe not as soon as we'd all like, but who knows?
In other words, the new CB is so fundmentally unusable (compared with classic CB) that a cap is not affecting me.
All those characters are stored as XML...that means they're tiny anyway. Take a notepad and copy 100 pages from any digital novel you have. You should still be able to store that so many times on your computer that you'll get bored trying. Their XML files are even smaller than that...so I don't get the limit at all. Keep in mind they're probably storing them in a SQL Server anyway, and it typically stores the data in a pretty neat fashion that is as memory efficient as possible.
As far as my need...well I DM multiple campaigns where I have easily 15-20 NPC's that the players can draw upon. So approaching 100 characters is a cake walk. Someone made an arguement earlier about them focusing on DM tools...I agree they should...but removing the limit should be as easy as removing an if statement that checks the count of your characters and having the hardware to back it up. Easily Said and Easily Done.
So yea...needless to say it doesn't make sense...and I hope in the next release they fix it.
My "real" characters from LFR and some home campaigns are all still on the CBC and will continue to be until the online CB is capable of duplicating the CBC functionality.
No one "needs" ANY characters.
Some people like to experiment with builds or keep copies of their characters at each level for reference, and that can easily lead to over 20. It's sad that we can't do that with the new CB.
Here's the reason I need more than 20 PC slots: I run 2 alternating Sunday games each with 7 or 8 characters, the Wednesday night Encounters campaign with 5 characters, and play in 3 different PbP campaigns. Therefore, I need at least 23 slots at the minimum. That's just what I have going on. Now, what to do if I want to join another PbP campaign or add new characters to an ongoing campaign? Right now, it just can't be done.
Here's the reason I need more than 20 PC slots: I run 2 alternating Sunday games each with 7 or 8 characters, the Wednesday night Encounters campaign with 5 characters, and play in 3 different PbP campaigns. Therefore, I need at least 23 slots at the minimum. That's just what I have going on. Now, what to do if I want to join another PbP campaign or add new characters to an ongoing campaign? Right now, it just can't be done.
The 2 alternating Sunday games you are currently running have a total of 15-16 Player Characters or NPCs? What about the Encounters campagin?
Now in theory, many of these new players should really sign up for DDi themselves. However, it's a bit much to tell a brand-new player that in addition to a folder and a pencil, the other things they need are a $75 membership to DDi to create a character, and maybe some dice. And really, am I supposed to tell my 11-year-old daughter to sign up to DDi on her own so she can DM?
Those of us who've played a long time know that character creation is one of the barriers to entry for brand-new players. As a 1E, 2E, and 3E DM, I loved 4E from day-one because it made it so easy to introduce new players. CB dramatically boosted this, making it possible for new players to create or customize their own character. The CB navigates new players carefully through the many choices, and doesn't force them to pick one of 5 stock characters from whatever WotC module is being used. And it enables younger players to create characters conforming to the rules with minimal fuss.
As a practical matter, I would not have been able to be a promoter of the game in this way if the old CB had a 20-character limit, and I will have to take that into account as I contemplate introducing new people to the game. A lot of new people are having fun playing the game because of my DDi subscription and the old CB (and, incidentally, they are all now buying their own WotC merchandise). But I don't see myself keeping this up under a 20-character limit.
I wonder if WotC has thought through this use-case? If, for business reasons, they need to limit character counts to prevent account sharing, one would hope they would be creative about facilitating those who promote the game. Perhaps an extra allowance for DMs who have run public play?
Flip side, it would be a wonderful introduction to the game if, for free, anyone could use CB with just a single character. Maybe even limited to 5th level or so.
Just a thought.
Now for a reason that isn't against what Wizards is trying to accomplish. As an RPGA player and DM the vast majority of the people in the group (around 20 people) I game with have well over 20 active characters that are played on an as need basis based on the module being run.
Keep in mind that it is typically the DM that has the sole DDi account for the gaming group. This 20 character limit, in my mind, is meant to force each player to get his own account. Isn't gonna work, but there you go.
Agreed completely. My fear is that their strategy is going to hurt WotC's bottom line, and therefore the future growth of the game. I wonder if WotC has really thought through the ramifications at the low end.
In my experience, one (admittedly business-oriented) way of looking at gamers is by the amount of money they are willing to spend a year on the game.
At the top, you have gamers willing to spend, say, $200+ per year. These gamers are most likely to buy a DDi account, at current prices. To the extent that multiple such players are in a single group, and currently sharing a DDi account, WotC is probably right that this change will encourage more DDi adoption. However, my limited experience suggests many groups have at most 1 person in this category - usually the DM - so I'm skeptical this is a huge revenue opportunity.
You then have people willing to spend $50-$150 per year. This group is probably spending enough on books, dice, and other accessories, to be unwilling to also get DDi. A lot of players fall here, especially younger players. I know a number of younger players, ages 11-14, who spend up to $60 a year, a significant portion of their annual cash flow, on WotC products, but could never add DDi to that.
Then you have a lot of people who play casually, borrowing others' books and dice, etc. Maybe you can talk them into splashing out on a PH or dice set.
The problem I see is that most gamers start at the bottom of the list and move up, and CB has been a great way for a DM with DDi to expand involvement by players at the bottom. By cutting off DMs from doing this for entry-level players, WotC is eating their seed corn. It may boost short-term revenues, but harms growth of the game going forward.
A few alternatives seem obvious to me. For instance, what if every book included a code that, when entered on-line, allowed the creation of one CB character, even without a DDi account. Instead of the limit blocking growth of the game, it would encourage it, as casual gamers would be encouraged to buy a single relevant book so they could manage their character, which would encourage them to get more involved.
Likewise, I could envision each DCI account number that has been active in public play sometime in the last year also allowing a single character. This would do a lot to encourage drop-in D&D Encounters play, reinforcing WotC's strategy for expanding the game. Instead, the DDi-only CB limited to 20 characters works against that strategy.
Yet another approach would be to follow cell phone companies, and have a friends-and-family model. Each DDi account could support up to say 10 users, with each additional user costing some marginal amount, say $10 / year, and have its own batch of characters. This probably more closely reflects the marginal value to a group of additional DDi memberships.
As with so much else (e.g. pulling down old CB right away rather than doing a beta period with the new CB), it certainly seems like this launch was not well-thought-through in terms of WotC's overall market strategy. It's a shame, because there is a lot of value and opportunity here.
A tag along subscription with a much lower cost ( esspecially in the main account can view them ) would be an incredible boon to the current system. At least, I find that it would easily generate another 50$ a year from my group.
As far as me being a DM and putting my players' characters on my account, rest assured they are NOT using my account. This is for my benefit only as a DM. The tell me what they want when the characters gain levels. I do not allow them to access my account. I really need to be able to save more than 20 characters.
1. A separate sub for online tools.
2. Different tiers for online tools vs Mag. Player tools, DM tools, Elite tools that have both, the Mag sub, and the combo sub that has all (like the current model)
3. Wizards finally realizes that the mags are not working as a sub service model, and only charge what they should for the tools. Most of the preview articules should get brough over to the free side.
Do you guys agree that with the export feature the character limit is not an issue? Then 20 Characters is more than enough as we can just save others on our hard drives.
I kind of disagree. I get what you're saying but I really like the whole cloud thing and want it to be successful and built upon. I can't see that happening with just 20 slots. Especially if no one is using the feature because they're all offloading them back onto their hard drives.
Do you guys agree that with the export feature the character limit is not an issue? Then 20 Characters is more than enough as we can just save others on our hard drives.
I kind of disagree. I get what you're saying but I really like the whole cloud thing and want it to be successful and built upon. I can't see that happening with just 20 slots. Especially if no one is using the feature because they're all offloading them back onto their hard drives.
Makes me want to predict that when the export feature goes live they will up the online storage because any gain from a limited storage will be lost. But I doubt anything more than 50.
1. Stay the same.
2. Be eliminated completely.