First, thank you to everyone who has taken the time to post constructive feedback both to us directly at [email]dndinsider@wizards.com[/email] and here in this thread. It is being read and it is being considered. It does make a difference.
Second, if you post in this thread, I will read it, regardless of whether the feedback is about the Compendium. I may not respond though.
Here are some general topics I’ll cover –
Rules vs. Content – The Compendium, from my vantage point, has always been intended as a “content” compendium and not a “rules” compendium. Ironically, internally we called it a Rules Compendium during the initial concept stages, but even then it was not intended to actually list, say, combat rules. It was only intended to cover what I think of as “itemized” content – items, powers, feats, skills, classes, races, etc. Ultimately, we thought of this as a tool to help players plan, optimize, and create their characters first and foremost, and we had eventual plans to add monsters to help DMs.
That said, there’s certainly been enough feedback from the audience to warrant us discussing what makes sense to add in the future. I offer no promise of “rules” elements to come…but additions of that sort will be considered for future updates…ultimately, I hear the people saying, “this tool would be far more valuable for us [DMs] if we were able to look up conditions, etc.”
Monsters – something we have been planning on doing, although I don’t have an exact timetable for it, yet. I’d like it to be some weeks from now…we shall see.
Errata and e-magazine content – a number of people pointed out the discrepancies between the errata and the Compendium. That issue should be fixed as of today. What’s live in errata and what’s live in the Compendium should now be one and the same. In general, we’ll try hard to have the lag time between errata publishing and Compendium publishing as short as possible, and hopefully within a day or two. As for e-magazine content (Dragon and Dungeon magazines), we’ll be working to get that content in the Compendium in the week after the articles have gone live. Again, there will be a few bumps in the road in the process, but that’s what we’re working towards.
Bugs – there are a number of data bugs that you have informed us of…given all the data entries, a certain amount of data bugs were expected. If you come across a bug, whether it’s incorrect data or a typo, please let us know…the Compendium will soon have a link on it where you can easily report issues to us. We should have most of the known data bugs fixed this week.
Word Filter – the search engine right now is canceling certain searches that contain SQL forbidden words…we’re trying right now to get a full understanding of what’s going on. That’s a different problem than some words not being able to be searched on, such as “and” or “or”. Those searches still work, but just do not actually search for those conjunctions. Feel free to send in email or post on the forums about other problems or inconsistencies you see here.
Next Development – Our next major update (hopefully up in 1-2 weeks) should have “Show All” functionality for each tab, so you can, say, click on the Powers Tab, click on the Show All button, and show all the powers that exist in the database. We also did a few preliminary data filters just to get it started…items will have filters of subcategory, level, and enhancement bonus. Once it goes live, let us know what you think, and/or additional columns for the data tabs that should get added.
If you really want to cover your bases, in addition to posting your thoughts on the forums, also email [email]dndinsider@wizards.com[/email] with Compendium in the subject line, and I’ll make sure to capture your specific feedback.
Longer-term Development – Items I’ve seen in feedback that are not planned for our next sprint, but will be discussed for later down the road – column sorting in both directions, more Boolean terms for searching (such as “AND” and “OR”, etc.), and Hyperlinking more text within an entry.
Launching in its own window – we had to make some compromises to get the Compendium out in our old web content management system…it had been designed and architected for our new web content management system…but for reasons completely unrelated to the Compendium, we did not feel confident in launching the new web CMS (and hence why the Compendium launch was delayed two weeks). So the Compendium not being in a normal window is a temporary state of affairs, and if feasible, may be something we fix even before we migrate to any new CMS.
I hope this information is helpful. A link to this information will eventually be added to the Compendium page.
As for other topics, I’m happy to hear feedback, but right now our main focus is on the e-magazines and the Compendium…people should be hearing some official word about the next steps in the client applications sometime in July.
Thanks for reading!
Ken
Is that an option at some point?
ALSO - What happened to the Epic Destinies posted on the Main site a few months back? The Relic Master and the Rogue that was always Invis and another one.
Thanks
Just read the final passage where this is addressed. Umm thanks!
Remaining Bug
The table for the Power Attack Feat doesn't show the two-handed damage.
I did a search for Epic Destinies and it turned up almost nothing. Will it eventually list out Epic Destinies?
ALSO - What happened to the Epic Destinies posted on the Main site a few months back? The Relic Master and the Rogue that was always Invis and another one.
Thanks
This article? http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080428
If you read closely - that's an attempt to indroduce the concept of Epic Destinies to 3.5, so I wouldn't count on seeing direct translations of these to 4E.
love,
malkav
I have to keep jumping back and forth from the search results list and the power listing to verify the action type of the power i'm looking at.
On another note: Congratulations on 4e! I've been playing since AD&D release and DMing since as well. 4e is the 1st version that makes sense of the rules.
Word Filter – the search engine right now is canceling certain searches that contain SQL forbidden words…we’re trying right now to get a full understanding of what’s going on. That’s a different problem than some words not being able to be searched on, such as “and” or “or”. Those searches still work, but just do not actually search for those conjunctions. Feel free to send in email or post on the forums about other problems or inconsistencies you see here.
Cool I was right.
Launching in its own window – we had to make some compromises to get the Compendium out in our old web content management system…it had been designed and architected for our new web content management system…but for reasons completely unrelated to the Compendium, we did not feel confident in launching the new web CMS (and hence why the Compendium launch was delayed two weeks). So the Compendium not being in a normal window is a temporary state of affairs, and if feasible, may be something we fix even before we migrate to any new CMS.
You can just copy the url of the compendium and paste it in a normal browser window and it works fine, multiple copies, no muss no fuss.
Also I think Ken deserves a thanks, he's being a good sport about running through the trenches here.
Rules vs. Content – The Compendium, from my vantage point, has always been intended as a “content” compendium and not a “rules” compendium. Ironically, internally we called it a Rules Compendium during the initial concept stages, but even then it was not intended to actually list, say, combat rules. It was only intended to cover what I think of as “itemized” content – items, powers, feats, skills, classes, races, etc. Ultimately, we thought of this as a tool to help players plan, optimize, and create their characters first and foremost, and we had eventual plans to add monsters to help DMs.
Anyone with any sense of the corporate world knows we only need to roll a 5 on this bluff check. That's the biggest line of BULL I've ever read. You know as well as I do that somewhere, someone is or should be getting their butt kicked for even suggesting this was a rules compendium. Now you're scrambling like mad to change it to either what you can scrap out of it or deny the initial product was ever a concept.
On a happy note, G'bless you for being the messenger to feed us a line of crap, it sucks that you're the one who has to do this. However, a good ruler kills the messenger and sends their headback in a box to the kingdom from which it came. Don't treat us like we're stupid.
Don't deliver us the online version of E-tools. There are 1000's of FANS out there with insane talent for this manner of programming. Why not deliver what works rather than what sells?
No one in their right mind should have expected the compendium to replace the books.
What I *do* expect, however, is at least a glossary of terms like prone, dazed, stunned, etc. And they should be hotlinked in the powers that create them. When monsters eventually come out, they should be hotlinked in there as well.
Nethergate Templar -- the powers not listing their Action Type in the detail text is actually a bug. Many powers do list their Action Type, and we've identified a general issue affecting the others...should be fixed for tomorrow.
Thanks for the feedback everyone!
Ken
That's the biggest line of BULL I've ever read.
Do you really think that, check the Scott Rouse video on You Tube about the "Rules Compendium" the only examples he ever gives are related to the information needed to understand a Character Sheet. While his talk of "100% content" and calling it to a Rules Compendium is misleading I think you can tell that what we have now is what they were planning originally. Unfortunately due to the use of language it wasn't what the customers were expecting, now I don't know if that was a deliberate attempt to mislead (if so for what purpose?), but I don't think they have cut back the vision, more the vision was too limited to start with.
Why they had such a limited vision, when you think how useful things like the www.d20srd.org is to every DM is another question. I imagine its probably because they weren't planning on as open an SRD as 3rd Ed. The lack of a Monster Database is very disappointing, but it was never mentioned back in the pre-publicity that I can find.
This will limit the number of new players to the game as well, people won't be able to go in and 'try a game of DnD online', because there will not be open access to the rules. Free copies are available illegally, why not illegally?
I'm sorry, but can you address this issue with Wizards and please ask them to reconsider their clenchhold of fear on the copyright so that we can actually have a RULES compendium as offered?
Rules vs. Content – The Compendium, from my vantage point, has always been intended as a “content” compendium and not a “rules” compendium.
Hmm, yess.
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/0404407.htm
Additionally, Wizards of the Coast is introducing 4th Edition online content in Dragon and Dungeon magazines and the first iteration of the D&D Rules Compendium on D&D Insider®.
http://news.filefront.com/the-analog-gamer-edditional-information-part-ii/
D&D Insider currently includes a number of digital resources, the first and probably most useful tool for anyone playing the game is the Dungeons & Dragon’s Compendium, a digital database of rules, powers, feats and character options that will be updated with new mechanics and information on or shortly after the release of new Wizards published materials.
The Compendium will serve as a reference to the print product and while it will not replace the need for the books, it will help organize and create a searchable archive that players and DMs can use during play or preparation as the system grows and the library of character and rule options expands over multiple tomes in the coming years. Troop said that the goal of the Compendium was to embrace the change in gaming technology. Many players have begun using laptops and wireless Internet connections to access rule references during gameplay and Wizards wanted to become the authoritative source for that information.
Several races are missing informations, such as Lite Step for elves...
Humans are listed as +1 to any attribute
:P
Wow, nice quote finds slunk. So is Mr. Troop apolitical candidatenow?
:P
tbqh the quotes aren't that damning: one could claim that the "rules" in the name was referring to items already posted and was removed from the name to clarify the position they already had, and also that they never told filefront anything about rules, and that the author got carried away.
But I think everyone remembers other comments to that effect, their "it was all a lucid dream you had" position now just really grates me.
Word Filter – the search engine right now is canceling certain searches that contain SQL forbidden words…we’re trying right now to get a full understanding of what’s going on.
Simple enough. Do what modern forums do and alter the input and the database and the query.
SELECT * FROM 'races' WHERE name='Elf';
I bet anything without editing this post that the forums just took that and stored that above line without trying to query the database with it.
Just make a list of SQL commands or ASPX command and make sure to includ escapes in the proper place.
SELECT * FROM 'races' WHERE name='1\\2 Elf';
Not the prettiest example but you can note the escape "\" to denote that the second slash is being used as literal text.
Also change terms.
BAD:
SELECT * FROM 'races' WHERE name='use';
(as in use database)
GOOD:
SELECT * FROM 'races' WHERE name='zuzsze';
Any time the search is made for the term "use" it will be first converted by the script to "zuzsze" then search for that.
When time to output replace "zuzsze" with "use" for humans again to read it.
These are only novice approaches, but simple things to look for when querying databases.
So I think you already understand what is going on. It is blocking words that SQL uses to protect the database and script itself form being corrupted. You just need to figure out how you will tackle it. Again checking the forums software will give oyu many ideas how to make searching for terms work by how it inputs things into the database and then pulls them out. Many even the search feature for the forums holds some clue how to fix the compendium.
MONSTERS:
That is easy. Just add the table for them and start inputting them. Then give them a tab. At least as a player reference include the playable races from MM in the existing races area providing as much or as little is needed. That shouldn't be too hard as the tables and such already exist to give you
Name Ability Scores Size SourceThen whatever the individual pages for them contain.
About another dozen or so entries into the database is all, and much less content than existing races from the PHB form what I understand.
SHOW ALL
This should take MUCH less time than 2 weeks. It is something simple.
Just find where you are deciding how to limit the search per page and display and remove the limit.
Items and Feats will probably eat some power to show the simple list, but them each will be listed, and the browser can search the list rather than having to use the query from currently existing.
Might even be smarter to do quickly as people could save the lists with the URL to the individual items and use them offline, and not have to access the database that often. Maybe take a note form the forums again and a function like the archiver. Just have static HTML pages with a list of links for each thing that doesn't interact with the database, so people can view a list of all items and them click a link on that list to be taken to the item on the sever itself....
Many ways to simply implement this without all the excess hassle or wait. I have pretty much complete all these thing the day it went live. I have a page of links to all items. Works great. Find the name of the item using the browser search function and click on that name to be taken to the item on the WotC servers. Works wonders.
HYPERLINKING:
Yup that will take some time....
I really don't understand how a content management system has anything to do with forcing a new window to be opened rather than just having the compendium open in an existing window like any normal page would. this is a browser issue. Just undo whatever is screwed up on the site that alters the way links are opened and let the user's browser handle it the way they want.
Tabbed browsing exists so you can open in a new tab, not have 400 occurrences of your browser esit because of popups.
Well I would be more than happy to provide you will the static link lists of existing RC items that you could format up pretty as a substitute for live searching to show all items. For items i don't mean gear like lanterns and swords, but elf, dwarf, etc ; warlock, warlord, etc....
Would take abo 10 minutes using an SQL query to make your own lists of the existing items for any tabs.
pseudocode:
for (x=0;x=table_length;x++){
if(entry_contains("Sorry, you are not authorized to view this information.")==false)
{
qhtml+="
}
}
Then just save the HTML output from the query and you have your list of available terms.
I am sure you know this already, but why make it sound as though people don't know what they are doing, or why making it any harder than it actually needs to be?
Thanks for at least getting the errata in there to see it inline.
Also I hope multiple sorting can be done in the future.
List all Feats.
Sort by Tier first.
Sort by name alphabetically next.
Or just sort for heroic tier feats for example, then just sort them by names....
Rules vs. Content – The Compendium, from my vantage point, has always been intended as a “content” compendium and not a “rules” compendium. Ironically, internally we called it a Rules Compendium during the initial concept stages, but even then it was not intended to actually list, say, combat rules. It was only intended to cover what I think of as “itemized” content – items, powers, feats, skills, classes, races, etc. Ultimately, we thought of this as a tool to help players plan, optimize, and create their characters first and foremost, and we had eventual plans to add monsters to help DMs.
That said, there’s certainly been enough feedback from the audience to warrant us discussing what makes sense to add in the future. I offer no promise of “rules” elements to come…but additions of that sort will be considered for future updates…ultimately, I hear the people saying, “this tool would be far more valuable for us [DMs] if we were able to look up conditions, etc.”
I'd like to offer some feedback from what I hope comes across as an objective perspective.
To start with, I have no immediate plans to switch from v3.5 to 4e. With that said, I will tell you what I would have hoped for in an online Rules Compendium in hindsight of v3.5's lifespan.
With the end of v3.5, I've found myself making compilations of various pieces of material, mostly character options and spell options. For example, the alternative class abilities, feats, new summoned monsters, changes in creature types, new racial traits (see Races of the Dragon Web Enhancement), new races, and more.
Additionally, I find so much content across my v3.5 library that had errata and changes as new books were published. The polymorph subschool; dragonblood subtype; draconic, illithid, heritage, and aberrant feats (are aberrant feats considered heritage feats?); new version of monsters from 3.0 to 3.5 (e.g. - felldrakes in 3.0 MM2 and a new one in 3.5 Dragon Magic); updates for 3.0 to 3.5 via the 3.5 update booklet; new game mechanics published in Sandstorm, Stormwrack and Frostburn; and much more.
Obviously, v3.5 is a mess to sort out in many ways. Wouldn't it have been nice for a Rules Compendium to include all of these changes to creatures (kobolds gaining the dragonblood subtype), updated errata presented in books only (e.g. - Complete Psionic, Spell Compendium, Magic Item Compendium, Rules Compendium) while also having an online resource to look up these pieces?
With the 4e Rules Compendium, player's and DMs could greatly benefit from an online resource that has every piece of game mechanic that governs the game. WotC to provide online access to these new changes in rules that actually govern the game play. Otherwise, there's a disparity among players in an understanding of the rules. While my copy of the PHB might include errors and a new supplement might make changes to how a certain game mechanic works (I don't mean a feat or other character building option), I could rest easy knowing that all I have to do is go online and search or browse for the latest version of a certain rules element.
Going back to the example of v3.5 D&D, when the kobold was updated in Races of the Dragon to include the dragonblood subtype and then again in the Races of the Dragon Web Enhancement with additional racial traits, a complete and current version of the kobold was never published anywhere. Additionally, because of copyright restrictions, no one other than WotC is allowed to publish such a creature (we can't even use the dragonblood subtype).
Going forward with 4e, I hope that WotC recognizes the tangled leash they put on their own customers with 3.5 and learns from that mistake with 4e. To put it plainly, don't skimp on the Rules Compendium. Keep it Current, comprehensive, complete and concise. Call it the 4C policy, if you will.
If you restrict the Rules Compendium to just character options, you're greatly undermining the potential of an extremely valuable resource. Consider it as a value added to the subscription of DDI.
Errata and e-magazine content – a number of people pointed out the discrepancies between the errata and the Compendium. That issue should be fixed as of today. What’s live in errata and what’s live in the Compendium should now be one and the same. In general, we’ll try hard to have the lag time between errata publishing and Compendium publishing as short as possible, and hopefully within a day or two. As for e-magazine content (Dragon and Dungeon magazines), we’ll be working to get that content in the Compendium in the week after the articles have gone live. Again, there will be a few bumps in the road in the process, but that’s what we’re working towards.
I wanted to comment on this piece, too. It seems you (WotC) have this model a bit backwards. Rather than releasing errata in a document and then updating the Compendium, create a workflow that uses the Compendium.
Here's how it could work (I've done this with data entry before so I know it works).
- The author updates existing components within the Compendium using an in-house UI, probably web-based.
- If necessary, a reviewer is notified of rules changes to the errata, and logs into the UI to approve, reject, or edit the changes. Changes can be marked as errata or proofreading.
- Once the changes are approved or edited, the Compendium is updated.
- A WotC employee can then run a command to grab any rules elements that have errata.
This process not only keeps the Compendium current, but saves time when publishing errata by preformatting the content in a readily publishable Web page. Heck, you could even have the web page grab all of this data dynamically.
Word Filter – the search engine right now is canceling certain searches that contain SQL forbidden words…we’re trying right now to get a full understanding of what’s going on. That’s a different problem than some words not being able to be searched on, such as “and” or “or”. Those searches still work, but just do not actually search for those conjunctions. Feel free to send in email or post on the forums about other problems or inconsistencies you see here.
Yikes! Ken, go down to your programmers and ask them why they are not using parameterized queries. If they give you blank looks get them off any web based project. Seriously. If what you say is true and completely accurate then your programmers are building SQL statements in their code, which besides being inefficient is a HUGE security hole. You just told the internet that they can use SQL injection on the compendium.
Not to mention they should follow the model "all user input is malicious" So there should be a filter on that text entry box that strips out naughty characters, and reformats the input so SQL can digest it properly. This is the front line to stop the two biggest security threats on the web - SQL injection and Cross Site Scripting.
Of course, maybe this is not a thing here, and you guys have it covered - but your quote above set off warning flags!
Yikes! Ken, go down to your programmers and ask them why they are not using parameterized queries. If they give you blank looks get them off any web based project. Seriously. If what you say is true and completely accurate then your programmers are building SQL statements in their code, which besides being inefficient is a HUGE security hole. You just told the internet that they can use SQL injection on the compendium.
Not to mention they should follow the model "all user input is malicious" So there should be a filter on that text entry box that strips out naughty characters, and reformats the input so SQL can digest it properly. This is the front line to stop the two biggest security threats on the web - SQL injection and Cross Site Scripting.
Of course, maybe this is not a thing here, and you guys have it covered - but your quote above set off warning flags!
Quick reminder that they aren't coding the underpinnings of the system- they hung it on a CMS system that isn't intended for it.
I'm not angry or bitter. I don't feel deprived of something I'd been planning on using. But now that I'm here and reading, I'm kind of drawn to the whole discussion just by the bad-faith corporatespeak that's coming from Ken Troop and other WoTC people. I know the natural impulse is to circle the wagons and hunker down when something's gone wrong, but it really is not the right way to deal with consumers or audiences. One of the things that anyone selling a subscription-based service online knows by now, you'd hope, is that once you shift to a subscription, you're a service, not a publication. WoTC is thinking about D&D as a publication--the fact that they did not and still have not grasped that what they're planning for D&D Insider is a service, and requires a shift in basic attitudes towards communication, customer relations, and so on, is as bad a sign as the fact that the service they hope to sell is unavailable.
When I read the above, "The Compendium was never about rules, just about content", seriously, I don't need to know anything else about the history of this product, anything about the recent history of D&D, I don't even need the helpful reprise of previous quotes by WoTC people about the Compendium. The whole statement radiates CYA from beginning to end. Suppose I'm selling a game that's primarily played offline, and I'm hoping to sell an online service that's an accompaniment to the game. So one of the services I'm bundling into that I call a compendium. What do players of my game need to be able to see online? A "guide to content"? Or a searchable set of the (rather complex) rules? What do I expect my customers would use a "guide to content" for in an online context, and how do I expect to provide something along those lines that would markedly improve upon free substitutes like wikis and so on?
The much smarter, clearer, service-oriented way to go about talking about the current state of the compendium would be something like this: "Making a Rules Compendium is more difficult than we originally supposed, and we're putting all of our resources into work on the Game Table and Character Visualizer, for which there is considerable demand. In the meantime, here's a looser and perhaps less useful guide to general content in the 4e". There's nothing wrong with being straight with your customers in general, and when you're dealing with a lot of disappointed people, it's all the more important. This kind of approach costs nothing and gains a lot.
I come to all this as an outsider. Like a number of other people who've posted about all this, I'm an old-timer who picked up the 4e rules on a lark, just to reconnect with D&D. But I'm also very interested in MMOGs as a whole, and therefore in what WoTC would choose to do with online tools in this edition.
I'm not angry or bitter. I don't feel deprived of something I'd been planning on using. But now that I'm here and reading, I'm kind of drawn to the whole discussion just by the bad-faith corporatespeak that's coming from Ken Troop and other WoTC people. I know the natural impulse is to circle the wagons and hunker down when something's gone wrong, but it really is not the right way to deal with consumers or audiences. One of the things that anyone selling a subscription-based service online knows by now, you'd hope, is that once you shift to a subscription, you're a service, not a publication. WoTC is thinking about D&D as a publication--the fact that they did not and still have not grasped that what they're planning for D&D Insider is a service, and requires a shift in basic attitudes towards communication, customer relations, and so on, is as bad a sign as the fact that the service they hope to sell is unavailable.
When I read the above, "The Compendium was never about rules, just about content", seriously, I don't need to know anything else about the history of this product, anything about the recent history of D&D, I don't even need the helpful reprise of previous quotes by WoTC people about the Compendium. The whole statement radiates CYA from beginning to end. Suppose I'm selling a game that's primarily played offline, and I'm hoping to sell an online service that's an accompaniment to the game. So one of the services I'm bundling into that I call a compendium. What do players of my game need to be able to see online? A "guide to content"? Or a searchable set of the (rather complex) rules? What do I expect my customers would use a "guide to content" for in an online context, and how do I expect to provide something along those lines that would markedly improve upon free substitutes like wikis and so on?
The much smarter, clearer, service-oriented way to go about talking about the current state of the compendium would be something like this: "Making a Rules Compendium is more difficult than we originally supposed, and we're putting all of our resources into work on the Game Table and Character Visualizer, for which there is considerable demand. In the meantime, here's a looser and perhaps less useful guide to general content in the 4e". There's nothing wrong with being straight with your customers in general, and when you're dealing with a lot of disappointed people, it's all the more important. This kind of approach costs nothing and gains a lot.
I've died and met my god in the Astral Sea...
Someone who said it all. Well done friend. Well done indeed. I hope that WotC takes a serious look at this post...
Thats all I have to say, because you said it already.
They ignore like posts in the C&C for CM thread all the time. If they think they are running the perfect forums and don't see the problems with them or the forums being a service, then what makes you think you giving money to WotC for another service will make them treat it any better? They will already have you money, just like from the books, so what do they care what you have to say after that???
[ontopic]
I couldn't make this stuff up.
Copied it elswhere in case they change it.
However, that being said, I can understand why they don't want to have those. You start adding those rules elements in along with the stuff they currently have and you start getting to the fact that you would not need the books at all. I understand many thought that this would be the case, but general common sense dictates that their core business for D&D is the books so creating something that makes those obsolete for many would not be a good business decision. So I can also understand why they would have done the compendium as it is. However, this would have been fixed if there was some way to register the books tho Im sure that would have been somewhat of a printing nightmare.
However in all honesty, the compendium is the feature that I was least looking foward to (tho understandbly the easiest to get up and running first). I can generally flip through books quick enough to not really need the compendium.
A few things I would like to see:
- Campaign managment tools (for NPCs, Encounters, etc)
- World building software: This would be great for novice DMs and veterans. It would make it easier to map out a convincing world, and if done well it could help guide people who have never done it before.
-Lower price: the features keep getting smaller, the promises less grand, and the more I think about it, the less I would probably be using it anyways. Why should I pay 15/month for something that isn't as comprehensive or exciting as WoW?
I have to say that I have mixed feelings on the compendium. I was under the impression as many were that it would have rules elements in it, such as Combat Advantage, Blindness and stuff like that. Thats the stuff that I would like to be able to reference easily. If I am leveling up or deciding to say buy something, I can spend the couple of minutes to get out the book and look at it closely as I am more than likely not going to need to have that really "on the fly" as much as say the other rules elements.
However, that being said, I can understand why they don't want to have those. You start adding those rules elements in along with the stuff they currently have and you start getting to the fact that you would not need the books at all. I understand many thought that this would be the case, but general common sense dictates that their core business for D&D is the books so creating something that makes those obsolete for many would not be a good business decision. So I can also understand why they would have done the compendium as it is. However, this would have been fixed if there was some way to register the books tho Im sure that would have been somewhat of a printing nightmare.
However in all honesty, the compendium is the feature that I was least looking foward to (tho understandbly the easiest to get up and running first). I can generally flip through books quick enough to not really need the compendium.
That's cool, but doesn't it kind of bug you that Ken Troop claimed that the rules compendium claims never happened?
However, that being said, I can understand why they don't want to have those. You start adding those rules elements in along with the stuff they currently have and you start getting to the fact that you would not need the books at all. I understand many thought that this would be the case, but general common sense dictates that their core business for D&D is the books so creating something that makes those obsolete for many would not be a good business decision.
If they stuck to the idea that the rules text was only available to subscribers, I don't really see what the problem is. I'd be paying $15 month-to-month or subscribe for 3 months to a year for a bit less per month. That would give WotC a steady stream of income rather than waiting for book sales to come in. I also don't think they'd see much of a drop in sales. Most gamers prefer hard copies, and like having the online tool in addition to their books.
I assumed that non-subscribers would just get page references and maybe a brief bit of teaser text for the character options and powers. Maybe I'm just misremembering what was said all those months ago.
You mean this one?
Copied it elswhere in case they change it.
Yes, those be them....er...it. Anyway. It is a rules compendium. Why play word games? The longer we get away from launch day with no real DDI components available the less hopeful I get that it's really going to happen and be worth a darn.
My oldest son is stationed at Fort Bragg, NC and I think we're just going to go with RP Tools for now. In six months, after we're all used to the software and with all the user made content that is already available.....why will we switch?
I really, really want DDI to be IT.....but IT needs to come on before it dies due to fading interest.
I don't think the compendium will need those sensitive rules like ability score allocation and xp-to-level stuff. Those usually aren't needed with any alacrity.
Oh, and I want the DMG "Winging It" table (Difficulty Class and Damage by Level). Please put that in the compendium.
The Sword Marshal paragon path is missing.
As is our hopefully within 1-2 weeks show all tab.
That's cool, but doesn't it kind of bug you that Ken Troop claimed that the rules compendium claims never happened?
I think that is what bothers me the most. Moving the goalposts closer to ensure a fieldgoal is understandable in the business world. But to even deny that they fixed the game bothers the ever-living crap out of me.
As for the "not replacing the books" thing - it's not like the SRD from 3E. It's not going to be free content. It is going to cost money. And you aren't going to get the nice hardcover (which I would think costs more to produce than a database) or the adventures or the flavor text or the organization, etc. I think illegal PDFs should be a much larger worry about loss of sales than a searchable online database that you are actually renting to the audience. Once you cancel your account, bye-bye Rules Compendium. Instead you'll get a Rules Index, which is exactly what you should get for free.
how hard is it for them to go in and add (using mysql though the code is basically the same in sql and we'll say for example this is for races)
With all that said, I want to respectfully point out that Ken wasn't denying that the compendium was ever referred to as the "Rules Compendium". In fact, I've quoted part of his original post here for clarity.
Rules vs. Content – The Compendium, from my vantage point, has always been intended as a “content” compendium and not a “rules” compendium. Ironically, internally we called it a Rules Compendium during the initial concept stages, but even then it was not intended to actually list, say, combat rules. It was only intended to cover what I think of as “itemized” content – items, powers, feats, skills, classes, races, etc. Ultimately, we thought of this as a tool to help players plan, optimize, and create their characters first and foremost, and we had eventual plans to add monsters to help DMs.
With all that said, I want to respectfully point out that Ken wasn't denying that the compendium was ever referred to as the "Rules Compendium". In fact, I've quoted part of his original post here for clarity.
With all due respect, no one was denying that he said it was called "rules compendium." What we're arguing against is that it had been referenced externally as "Rules Compendium" as part of the 4e hype throughout the past year. Rules Compendium was not just some term we grabbed from WotC through osmosis; it was marketed to us as such. WotC constantly promoted a tool that would have the rules of the game. They later (as of D&D XP) muddied the waters by explaining that it would contain feats, classes, powers, etc., but barely clarified that it would not contain rules. In fact, they kept saying the word "rules" in videos and such.
In 3e, there was always a clear delineation between rules and character options. WotC even went so far as to make the distinction in the 3.5 Rules Compendium. Having been released less than a year ago, it's no wonder there's confusion over that term. Rules Compendium contained almost no character options at all (just a few spell clarifications), but was all rules of the game. When people complained that it was lacking a lot of the other character building rules, WotC made it a point to distinguish between rules and character options.
At the same time, WotC is promoting 4e and D&DI throwing around the phrase "rules compendium" to describe an online database where you can look up the rules from any book.
Can you see how the customer base feels a bit mislead?
With all due respect, no one was denying that he said it was called "rules compendium." What we're arguing against is that it had been referenced externally as "Rules Compendium" as part of the 4e hype throughout the past year. Rules Compendium was not just some term we grabbed from WotC through osmosis; it was marketed to us as such. WotC constantly promoted a tool that would have the rules of the game.
I apologize for any confusion there, and I understand that it was referenced as a Rules Compendium, which was clearly a poor choice of name given what it has led some people in the community to expect. To my knowledge it was never intended to replace the books as a complete source of rules, so any perception on people's part that we were marketing it that way is our fault for not being more clear.
We have screenshots man. Screenshots of the website of it being called a "Rules Compendium". It was called a "Rules Compendium" internally and externally. It seems to me (and I think to several other people) that you guys simply changed your minds from this original concept to whatever it is supposed to be right now (which is, tbh, a steaming pile of Dire Wolf doody.)
This is simple stuff. It takes a little while to get the stuff ready and put it inside a compendium, but I mean maybe a week with 2-3 people working on it together.
On the thing as a whole, if you won't include everything that is in the books + extra content from Dragon and Dungeon then it is pretty much useless to players who put the page numbers for things relevant to their characters on the sheet. I find that many players do this as I have gamed with several groups in several states.
I'm really kind of shocked to see that this has gone absolutely no where. Give us something we can deal with and give us some info after the meetings this week GZ. I think we're dying to be thrown a bone here.
[RC1] What is the difference for this feature between the subscriber and non-subscriber.For subscribers, the Compendium offers detailed text of the 4th Edition core rules mechanical elements (a power, a class, a race, a feat, a skill, a magic item...). The combat chapter, for example, is not part of the compendium. There will be some information about some of the combat related information, like conditions, in the game table, but the D&D Insider Compendium is not meant to replace the rule book.
and
[RC6] I was pretty sure that the compendium wasn't going to contain rules, but point you the rules in whatever book they were part of, so I'm unclear as to why there seems to be a camp here suggesting that buy having DDi, you won't need to buy the new books for new material. Could someone clarify this for me?
The compendium will contain mechanical rules elements, i.e. the details of a feat or power, or the information about a class or race. It will not provide details about character creation rules or combat rules for example.
For those that will be subscribing to D&D Insider when it starts, they will be able to see these detailed information. Others will see the power/feat/race/class,... name and be prompted to the book where that element has been printed in.
Parts of the Compendium will have free previews, much like all the D&D Insider components when they roll out.
This is current standard of plans, best I can tell.
I apologize for any confusion there, and I understand that it was referenced as a Rules Compendium, which was clearly a poor choice of name given what it has led some people in the community to expect. To my knowledge it was never intended to replace the books as a complete source of rules, so any perception on people's part that we were marketing it that way is our fault for not being more clear.
Really? Dude, On D&DI's main page there is STILL a graphic with the words "Rules Compendium" clearly visible. "Given what it has led some people in the community to expect"? I'd think it's led EVERYONE in the comunity and anyone who visits dndinsider.com (for their free 10 day trial) to expect a Rules Compendium. 1984 much? I don't wanna be a jerk but everyone can see the goalposts moving and it's infuriating.
Think about. Everyone is sitting around the game table and they forgot the rules on a specific wizard spell.
"Hey, what does Thunderclap do again?"
I'm not gonna pull open the online compendium, I'll just flip to page 167 after I ask the players. "About what level is it?" Bam, problem solved. Rules on the other hand might be a bit more difficult to find. Especially if its a vague rule buried somewhere in the combat section. Now THAT would justify the compendium.... but this?
I can't believe how badly WotC is screwing over Mac users. Mac users are going to pay full D&Di price, and they'll only be able to access a broken rule compendium and the character builder.... Both of which have easy "Do it yourself" methods called... uhh... do it yourself? I don't need a special tool to look up a rule, or fill out a character sheet. I could see myself using the compendium while playing on the gametable... but wait.... I can't use the gametable.
Really? Dude, On D&DI's main page there is STILL a graphic with the words "Rules Compendium" clearly visible. "Given what it has led some people in the community to expect"? I'd think it's led EVERYONE in the comunity and anyone who visits dndinsider.com (for their free 10 day trial) to expect a Rules Compendium. 1984 much? I don't wanna be a jerk but everyone can see the goalposts moving and it's infuriating.
I understand how that can be frustrating. Unfortunately, regardless of how it looks, the best I can do is say again that it was never intended to replace the books as a complete source of rules.
If there was a change in plans internally, I would just explain the truth about it. Trust me, in these situations it's always much easier just to tell the community the truth.
Both Ken Troop and I have posted on this subject and we've both been in the games industry for a long time. Hopefully most of you will understand that there'd be no upside for us to comment at all if we'd be saying something untrue.
Hopefully most of you will understand that there'd be no upside for us to comment at all if we'd be saying something untrue.
This might be a problem, there are many examples of comments made by people (I do not just mean WotC) making statements they believed to be true, but in fact was incorrect from some to major departure from the truth.
I can well understand that neither Mr. Troop (who has broken at least one promise) nor you intend to state something as true that indeed is false. However you might not being told the truth to tell us.
I can even understand plans changing, that promise to post in a week or two to a thread started. Just things like that do not inspire trust.
Things that marketing put out that did not occur does not inspire trust.
Finding a better name at least might start to build some trust. It is easy to lose trust but hard to gain trust.
I understand how that can be frustrating. Unfortunately, regardless of how it looks, the best I can do is say again that it was never intended to replace the books as a complete source of rules.
Maybe not once the initial "e-books tied to print books" concept went away, but it very definitely was intended at some point to allow subscribers to access all rules content. Indeed, Rouse said as much at D&D XP, and then went on to say that although the initial concept went away because it was too hard to do, that the Rules Compendium would contain 100% rules content of the books so that if you needed to look something up, you could do so.
The idea that it was never going to contain combat rules or conditions, etc, is simply revisionism, or at least was not what was voiced as recently as February.
Sadly, I think the continued decision not to include that content is going to provoke a fan-based compendium that does include that info. Something like CrystalKeep will probably come into existence and since game rules aren't copyrightable, it will be perfectly legal to do so. I think the lack of including combat rules will eventually be seen for what it is - short-sighted.
After all, if I can look up any power and any class from any book in the Compendium, that's actually more of the book's content than the combat and conditions rules. Indeed, even if you include the Adventuring chapter as rules that won't be part of the Compendium, that'll amount to a grand total of 40 pages out of 315 from the PHB.
Leaving monsters out is something different, and I don't think I have as much of a problem with that, but not being able to reference "Stunned" while running a game on the Game Table is kind of silly.
Its apple that screwed the suers by making their stuff propriatary, they have finnnaly come out of that phase by allowing another companie to make their porcessors wich allow user to finnaly start using other programs and operating systems. Just get bootcamp or parralels and you can run DDI stuff, or better yet spend hte same amount of money on a laptop that you would on those to programs and buy a PC laptop so you can actually play games.
THERE IS NO TABLETOP DEMO!!!!!!
For those of you that still don't know they photoshoped the whole DDI virtual tabletop demo. In fact, if you haven't noticed, even the animation routes of people moving characters around is obviously preplanned. Next time your at a Con and you see WOTC showing off some add hock DDI ask them to move something one square to the right. Even though sometimes they "act" like they are moving a character with a computer they really are just clicking a preprogrammed video done with power point.
THERE IS NO TABLETOP DEMO!!!!!!
For those of you that still don't know they photoshoped the whole DDI virtual tabletop demo. In fact, if you haven't noticed, even the animation routes of people moving characters around is obviously preplanned. Next time your at a Con and you see WOTC showing off some add hock DDI ask them to move something one square to the right. Even though sometimes they "act" like they are moving a character with a computer they really are just clicking a preprogrammed video done with power point.
This is incorrect.
The early Demo (last year Gencon Demo) was made from a functioning preproduction stage. We did not feel confident enough though to use this application live, and we took the movie for the show main presentation, something that is fairly common for a pre production stage.
At D&D Experience, one of the developer and myself were using the applications live, and even if we were going through a planned scenario, we were using the latest build available there, and even did expand on some functionalities for some of our audience members who asked more specific questions.
At Game Day, both the Character Visualizer and the character builder were usable by people. They were able to create their own characters, some experienced bugs because the applications were still in late alpha stage, but we were confident enough to hand over the keyboards to the players there.
We have had our usablity testing done for the D&D Game Table Player 3 weeks ago, using the Kobold Hall adventure from DMG. These were sessions with one DM and three players, lasting one hour only. We certainly do plan to have the same kind of live demo done at Gencon, and we are working to get this done. Provided we have no hardware or connectivity issues, people should be able to see the three main applications between our booth's stations and a few machines set for demoing the game table.
This is incorrect.
At D&D Experience, one of the developer and myself were using the applications live...
At Game Day, both the Character Visualizer and the character builder were usable by people.
Things like this are always good to know. Since you've been using it, do you feel like it will live up to everyone's expectations, and did it seem close enough to stability for public testing or "closed public" testing?
The compendium has been great at updating with errata, but when can we expect Dragon and dungeon content to be in it? like wolved of maldeen and all that jazz (also magic items).
I know you can't say a date, but I would just like to know if that is still in the plans.
Things like this are always good to know. Since you've been using it, do you feel like it will live up to everyone's expectations, and did it seem close enough to stability for public testing or "closed public" testing?
I am of course partial to what we have, having been involved with it for over 16 months now. Using the applications, there are a few things I wish we had more time to work on, but overall I think the launch package is solid, and there will be plenty of community feedback and update that can be incorporated in, during the beta period or after launch.
We are activekly working on getting a closed beta test started. The D&D Game Table is still in alpha so may not be part of the initial closed beta steps.
We are activekly working on getting a closed beta test started.
Any information to provide on if/how one could get consideration for closed beta?
Cheers!
Wollstonecraft
Any information to provide on if/how one could get consideration for closed beta?
Cheers!
Wollstonecraft
The close beta list was announced months ago, a list likely exists already. Some were to be selected from RPGA, some were to be selected at random. It appears at game day people were invited as well to submit names if interested. Of course the list might be been revised and perhaps there might even be open slots.
After all plans are always subject to change.
If there are open slots for the beta, there's tons of us here who want in...
Any information to provide on if/how one could get consideration for closed beta?
We already have taken sign up at D&D XP, and we will open an online sign up when we are ready to do so.
There will be selection criteria for participating to the closed beta, and we do not have those fully defined yet, but overall, the closed beta will be widening as it is going, and will then lead into the open public beta stage. So everybody signing up will at some point get into the beta.