Setting this feedback thread in advance for Randy's Digital Insider #5, due to go live later this evening.
"I don’t plan to spend a lot of time discussing the Game Table in this column in the near future because it’s not done and lots of features are still subject to change between now and when we eventually launch it. That said, I recognize that there is a lot of concern in the community around the pricing model for the Game Table, especially the virtual miniatures that make it look so good, so here is our current intention: Your subscription to the Game Table will give you access to unlimited copies of all of the miniatures we have produced. We no longer have any active plans to have micro-transactions in this product at launch, though we may add them over time, especially as part of Adventure or Module products."
The reason I added a sig here after my years here.
Originally Posted by AsmodeusLore
Can we get a copy of the Scales of War overview?
The short answer to this question is “no.” The problem is that we’ve mapped out an elaborate plot that covers level 1 all the way through level 30 and there are a number of surprises along the way. Those “grand reveal” moments won’t be nearly as impactful if they’ve leaked out via plot summaries and/or an overview of where the Path is going. I can assure you that the current fears about the lack of a compelling archvillain, or a logically complete structure, or major NPCs, or a real hook are all misguided. Just wait and see!
I'm just glad they're paying attention. We the customers aren't always just a pile of gormless wallets, sometimes we have solid reasoning and valid points on our side.
That's a good point. They listened. It's just that the answer is "no."
That's a good point. They listened. It's just that the answer is "no."
I could give a pus about Scales of War overviews or whatever. Was talking about the v-mini thing.
My mommy would be so proud.
I still don't completely understand the decision. I mean, yes, there is a valid reason behind maintaining secrecy. Let me try and break down my thought process here into Present, and Potential for both players and DMs.
Presently, we have no overview. From the Player's point of view, this eliminates the potential to peek. Thats not a terrible thing, unless you have a special situation. But from the DM's point of view, this is a huge loss. We can no longer plan ahead, as we have in the past. Yes, there is some more suspense, but the suspense is now directed to Players AND DMs. And the DMs don't even benefit from it. Once we read the adventure, the suspense is lost. And any player who is going to peek will just peek at the individual adventures anyways. Worst of all, DMs no longer have any chance of planting plot seeds in advance. Oh, and the players suffer as well. Say a player is trying to decide between a feat that gives a +1 to attacks against fey or a feat that gives a +1 to attacks against fiends. As a DM, I currently have no way of knowing whether we are going to the feywild, or the abyss.
Now, flip the coin and look at the Potential. In the past, Adventure Paths have come with an overview. Yes, this came with the potential detriment of players to read ahead and spoil some of the plot. However, this is a threat which DMs who run published games are familiar with and have become accustomed to dealing with. And most players don't even peek. Instead, they voluntarily induce their own suspense. The overview also came with the guaranteed benefit that DMs could plan ahead, and more effectively plant seeds for upcoming plot points.
So, to summarize, withholding the overview gains us virtually nothing. The players who would peek at an overview will still peek at an adventure as it comes out. However, giving us the summary gains us some significant advantages. Am I missing something? Maybe someone could please explain to me?
I could give a pus about Scales of War overviews or whatever. Was talking about the v-mini thing.
O-kay.
So, to summarize, withholding the overview gains us virtually nothing. The players who would peek at an overview will still peek at an adventure as it comes out. However, giving us the summary gains us some significant advantages. Am I missing something? Maybe someone could please explain to me?
This was exactly my thought - how, possibly, is keeping the secret from the DM a cool, suspenseful move? The big reveals are wasted on me anyway. Of course, I don't understand why they feel the need to play games about what classes will be in the PHBII, and what the next Bonus Tool is, so...whatever. Were I not naturally Pollyanna-ish, I would think that there actually isn't a plot, despite what they said.
Yes and no. Due to the realities of dealing with external submission plus an in-house team that has more priorities than just the magazines, we aren’t going to commit in advance to which Dragon and Dungeon articles come out on which days. Instead, our current schedule is to make sure that something new comes out every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and that a monthly compilation comes out at approximately the beginning of the month. We’ve been hitting this schedule pretty regularly with the exception of one one-day hiccup due to Gen Con
He still doesn't get it. Randy, if your development team cannot keep up with writing 1, perhaps 2 articles a month each, you never should have brought dragon and dungeon in house. If you wanted to focus on the actual hard copy products, you should have left the supplemental work to someone else. If you cannot properly edit the articles or put the effort into writing them intitially, so they are neither the utterly useless Character Concepts we had last month, due to the innummeral errors it included, or the Star Pact article we had this month, which has become increasingly apparent that no one really thought all that hard about (if the boards even have to argue about things like Twofold Pact being better than anyother comparable feat in the game, and it took them all of two hours to realize this, you are not doing the work, period), you should not just be throwing something together, you should be letting someone else do a good job at it for you. I use the previous examples, not just because they are the most apparent I could think of immediately, but also because the problems inherent in them are of effort, they are problems with the person writing them not really caring about what they are doing.
As I mentioned, the first mention of how good Twofold Pact is came within two hours of the article going live. The problems with the Character Concepts came even earlier. This is unacceptable from the people that are getting paid to do this. I'm not expecting everything to be error-free, I am not expecting things printed to not be good enough to compete with the material that is currently out there. But I am expecting the people writing this stuff to care. I am expecting the Character Concepts to be legal builds, that actually follow the rules and that weren't just throw together to get something out there. I am expecting the fact that this is all being released digitally to actually matter, there is no excuse for things that are brought up here to neither be addressed nor fixed before the end of the month. You don't even need to look far, the community leads are nice enough to give each Dragon or Dungeon article it's own thread and the the CharOp boards are even less subtle in pointing out when something needs work.
It would take less than an hour for someone to browse through in the afternoon, see something being talked about, direct its attention to its respective author and it would take them less than ten minutes to write two lines explaining themselves or to say they will fix it, and, given how long and drawn out the arguments about these things get, even less time to make the neccessary corrections. If Wizards does not have this kind of time to work quality control, they should let another developer take it out of their hands for them.
All they would have to do is put in in a separate file and label it SPOILER SPOILER DON'T OPEN or whatever works these days.
I agree that if a player wants to cheat and look ahead at the adventures, he will do that anyway (and with much more detail) because there is no separation of the magazines in the subscription.
Overviews don't have to be ultra spoilers, just outlines of "And then the PCs go to town X where they defeat villain Y." Even armed with that level of information, a Player won't be able to do all that much about anything or have that much spoiled for him.
An overview is not a "Walkthrough" of a videogame.
The only major reason I can think of that they will not give an overview (even though they give overviews of every single other adventure they make, which sort of invalidates their whole "spoiler" argument) is that they haven't actually written the adventures and thus want to leave a lot of leeway.
I can understand not having everything written in advance for a yearlong project, but surely you can plan on certain things to not change regardless of the author.
Scales of War is nigh useless to many DMs until a good deal of adventures come out and can be read over in advance. Otherwise, it really is just a string of adventures that people keep adding to over time.
Wow, they really do listen!
"I don’t plan to spend a lot of time discussing the Game Table in this column in the near future because it’s not done and lots of features are still subject to change between now and when we eventually launch it. That said, I recognize that there is a lot of concern in the community around the pricing model for the Game Table, especially the virtual miniatures that make it look so good, so here is our current intention: Your subscription to the Game Table will give you access to unlimited copies of all of the miniatures we have produced. We no longer have any active plans to have micro-transactions in this product at launch, though we may add them over time, especially as part of Adventure or Module products."
and Nexus Rejoices
Hey! I made it in print!
My mommy would be so proud.
Same here, lol. Thanks to Mudbunny and Solice for putting that question list together we get some concise answers, well done. I'm glad to see that we get to test drive the apps as they finish them, hopefully this will help resolve some of the FUD factor that seems to run rampant on the boards *and the rest of the internet in general*.
Yay! No buying vminis! I can see them doing "special" option models but I think that the folks who will buy them will be few. I just want to get my hands on the darn thing (gametable) so I can fire up the creative oven and start playing.
Let those who declare WotC never listens take a moment to reflect.
Free minis will be nice.
Let those who declare WotC never listens take a moment to reflect.
well, free minis as long as they don't feel the need to change it, if you read the article precisely. i have no problem with special minis being charged for, but i'd really like to have a way to get e.g. the minis or maps for the module i already paid in hardcover available to me online as well - without further charge.
well, free minis as long as they don't feel the need to change it, if you read the article precisely. i have no problem with special minis being charged for, but i'd really like to have a way to get e.g. the minis or maps for the module i already paid in hardcover available to me online as well - without further charge.
While that'd be great, it comes back to the (discarded) idea of online codes to prove ownership of the physical product.
Until they have a feasible way to produce that, I'm not at all surprised to see that I'll be (potentially) paying for a pre-made GTO version of a published module.
I'd still have the option of making that table myself, of course, (scan the maps, position the minis, label the rooms, etc) but if $3 - $10 (depending on the size of the module in question) saves me a few hours of re-creating the work, well, my time is easily worth that - especially as I don't particularly enjoy those tasks.
There are other question marks that go with that, of course. Will I be buying or renting the mod? Will I have access to other minis while running the mod? Can I use the minis in the mod with other GTO games, etc.
However, as a launch feature AND as a "down the road" feature, I see this as a fair compromise for the time being.
I'll sweat the details of pre-made mods later.
I'm betting they don't even have all 30 levels planned out yet.
Free minis will be nice.
Let those who declare WotC never listens take a moment to reflect.
OK.
. . .
I have reflected:
I don’t plan to spend a lot of time discussing the Game Table in this column in the near future because it’s not done and lots of features are still subject to change between now and when we eventually launch it.
Translation:
"I am not going to keep making statements that people can and will treat as promises I am not keeping."
That said,
Translation:
"However, while I am not promising anything about a product due out next year . . . "
I recognize that there is a lot of concern in the community around the pricing model for the Game Table,
Translation:
"Even though other WotC employees have dismissed the relevance of issues raised in the forums, I know villagers with torches and pitchforks when I see them!"
especially the virtual miniatures that make it look so good,
Translation:
"the stuff we planned to charge you extra for on a continuing basis as a key part of our business plan"
so here is our current intention:
Translation:
"Intention: a plan subject to change."
Your subscription to the Game Table will give you access to unlimited copies of all of the miniatures we have produced.
Translation:
"Free stuff!"
We no longer have any active plans
Translation:
"Intention: a plan I can change later."
to have micro-transactions in this product
Translation:
"we would make a lot selling you these things for a long time"
at launch, though we may add them over time,
Translation:
"Intention: a preliminary press release about something we are going to change later."
especially as part of Adventure or Module products.
Translation:
"as soon as we can figure out how to properly repackage it so you will want to buy these things we really want to sell you for a long time."
Hey! I made it in print!
My mommy would be so proud.
I still don't completely understand the decision. I mean, yes, there is a valid reason behind maintaining secrecy. Let me try and break down my thought process here into Present, and Potential for both players and DMs.
Presently, we have no overview. From the Player's point of view, this eliminates the potential to peek. Thats not a terrible thing, unless you have a special situation. But from the DM's point of view, this is a huge loss. We can no longer plan ahead, as we have in the past. Yes, there is some more suspense, but the suspense is now directed to Players AND DMs. And the DMs don't even benefit from it. Once we read the adventure, the suspense is lost. And any player who is going to peek will just peek at the individual adventures anyways. Worst of all, DMs no longer have any chance of planting plot seeds in advance. Oh, and the players suffer as well. Say a player is trying to decide between a feat that gives a +1 to attacks against fey or a feat that gives a +1 to attacks against fiends. As a DM, I currently have no way of knowing whether we are going to the feywild, or the abyss.
Now, flip the coin and look at the Potential. In the past, Adventure Paths have come with an overview. Yes, this came with the potential detriment of players to read ahead and spoil some of the plot. However, this is a threat which DMs who run published games are familiar with and have become accustomed to dealing with. And most players don't even peek. Instead, they voluntarily induce their own suspense. The overview also came with the guaranteed benefit that DMs could plan ahead, and more effectively plant seeds for upcoming plot points.
So, to summarize, withholding the overview gains us virtually nothing. The players who would peek at an overview will still peek at an adventure as it comes out. However, giving us the summary gains us some significant advantages. Am I missing something? Maybe someone could please explain to me?
An open letter to Randy Buehler
Having said that...
No Scales or War overview because you want it to be a surprise are you freaking kidding me?! What in the world gave you the impression that a GM should be surprised in their own campaign? This isnt a mystery novel, this is an adventure path that you will eventually be charging us for and something the people invest over a year of their gaming time for.
Hey! I made it in print!
My mommy would be so proud.
I still don't completely understand the decision... {cut for length}
I came here to reiterate this. Why I'm extremely happy that Randy provided an answer, I don't understand the reasoning at all.
Who are you intended to surprise? The DM? How is it going to be any different that the "surprise" they'd get from reading through the overview? The Players? Are you expecting that the players are reading through the adventures before they play them? What is the benefit of having some "grand reveal?"
I would point out that across the office (or... somewhere), the Star Wars RPG guys have an ongoing adventure path that I understand is also getting good reviews. They put out a campaign outline for all the DMs. As a player in that system, I haven't read it and so can't comment on it's content, but obviously such a move is not unheard of.
So I'd like to join in and ask again for a campaign summary, so that we can actually run games using this adventure path. Thank you.
A sudden thought... I wonder if WotC just want to have the magazines start costing money before they give away the entire adventure plot. I guess I could understand that, whether I agree with it or not. It seems more likely to get people to actually buy the magazines if they have an idea of how fun the entire campaign will be...
A sudden thought... I wonder if WotC just want to have the magazines start costing money before they give away the entire adventure plot. I guess I could understand that, whether I agree with it or not. It seems more likely to get people to actually buy the magazines if they have an idea of how fun the entire campaign will be...
I'm beginning to think, as the day wears on, that this is the key. With an adventure overview in hand, DM's can say "No, this looks boring, why should I pay for the next 16 months worth" or "Yeah...okay, I'll use their adventures while they're free, and when it comes time to pay, I'll write my own ending."
I still don't know why over on the Star Wars side, this thinking isn't in play, but it's rather frustrating. I'm fumbling my characters into Siege at Bordrin's Watch right now, but if they go off-script (so to speak), I hope I can transition smoothly into AP3.
Alternatively, I may just have 'em roll up new characters every time, appropriately leveled, and play 'em as adventures-of-the-week.
Edit: I would like to echo the call for an overview (as if that wasn't clear). And I don't think ascribing a profit motive to not publishing one is necessarily an insult to WotC - it's just kind of a senseless move.
Wow, they really do listen!
"I don’t plan to spend a lot of time discussing the Game Table in this column in the near future because it’s not done and lots of features are still subject to change between now and when we eventually launch it."
Based on that statement, combined with the job listings of the past week, I'm now fully convinced that they partially or completely scrapped previous code for the game table and are starting over on it from scratch. I'd put money on it.
So... get I get e-Dragon without subscribing to e-Dungeon because about half of the magazine just became useless to me?
Cheers, LT.
Can we get a copy of the Scales of War overview?
The short answer to this question is “no.” . . . Just wait and see!
I won't bother to elaborate on how disappointing that answer strikes me, as many have already posted very coherent and well thought-out responses to the weak justification for the negative response.
Instead, I will say that "just waiting and seeing" is really about the only thing a DM can do at this point. I personally cannot imagine a DM inviting five players to join a game that will span 30 levels without having a fairly clear idea of what that game will entail.
Put my name on the Petition to Reverse the Answer Regarding the Scales of War Overview.
Based on that statement, combined with the job listings of the past week, I'm now fully convinced that they partially or completely scrapped previous code for the game table and are starting over on it from scratch. I'd put money on it.
I'd take the over/under on them scrapping the entire game table and re-starting from scratch. Having seen the demo of it, tossing out the whole thing because v-misi pricing has changed would be a MAJOR case of tossing out the baby with the bathwater.
There's no harm in leaving the code in place to limit v-minis, even if the-minis are now free (and remember - pre-published adventures may still suffer a v-minis limit). It would simply remain an unused feature of the software.
As for scrapping parts of code here and there, that bet is too ambiguous. I mean, deleting a semi-colon somewhere or re-designing a UI could qualify, and that's a sucker's bet.
Your subscription to the Game Table will give you access to unlimited copies of all of the miniatures we have produced. We no longer have any active plans to have micro-transactions in this product at launch, though we may add them over time, especially as part of Adventure or Module products.
Yeah. The first sentence shows someone figured out what they had been doing wrong all along.
I am concerned about the second sentence bolded here.
I would hope that the Dragon and Dungeon content comes free as you would have to have that basic tier of subscription prior to getting the advanced tier that includes the Game Table application. Otherwise you have gone from one good thing, to trading one bad thing for another bad thing.
Now for instance if they were to charge for KotS in Game Table formats, then that would be something worth paying for, as people could choose to run adventures online without needing to buy the physical product.
Also the first sentence would indicate that in no way shape or form would you EVER have to pay for any kind of limited edition or special miniature, but get to use anything as it comes out just like anything else. They have the time to add more models to represent all the DDM minis, or all the MM monsters and such, and don't have to worry with doing it with speed as they will be free with the Game Table. Maybe a "Monster per Week" kind of thing after the initial collection. This would mean that while you may HAVE to use tokens for a period until the monster is presented in 3D fashion, you are never forced to use only tokens for some arbitrary reason.
So I hope more things in the marketing department evolve such as this has and WotC continues to take consumer opinion seriously.
Randy, I don't buy your reasoning. You would not write an adventure path without some kind of outline, why should you expect me to run it without some kind of outline? I'm pretty darn good at foreshadowing and adding to adventures -- blending character backgrounds and goals with those of the plot, etc. You know, just like the advice in the DMG?
You are not giving me the tools to do this.
Moreover, we were told that one of the benefits of the current model of DDI was that your staff would have some time between an article's release and its compilation into an issue of Dungeon to address typos and other mistakes. Dozens of emails were posted about the errors and omissions in Rescue at Rivenroar, yet not a letter was changed.
Both of these problems, and DDI's responses, which amount to
1) ignore the valid criticisms of the adventures, and
2) blow off the customer's complaints about the lack of an outline.
This has not sold me on DDI, quite the opposite, in fact. I know what I got was free, but it's purpose was to show me how great the service will be. You haven't.
Personally, I love 4e, and have no interest in Pathfinder RPG (D&D 3.875). But those guys at Paizo set the standard in Dungeon for an adventure path (and in their later products). They are doing it right. Please learn from their success, acknowledge your problems and change.
And good news on the DDi pricing, but still going to limit v-minis? Don't get me wrong, I'm VERY happy that you guys have reversed the decision on the v-mini charging. But it seems that you have over-promised and underdelivered... yet again in classic DDi fashion... when you have told us there will be a limit of v-minis one can use.
Time to change my sig, again.
Thanks for your communication. Thanks for listening to feedback, both positive and negative, and thanks for stepping out there and telling us all what we do want and might not want to hear. I thought the articles was the most informative piece I've read here in the last few months.
There is no point in keeping secrets from the GM. From the players, yes, but not the GM. He is the one ultimately responsible for setting up the "big reveal"s and making sure they have an impact when they finally happen. The lack of an overview does not facilitate their ability to do that, it undermines it. You say you have this great story to tell, but it's not WotC that's responsible for telling it to individual groups of players, it's the GMs. In order to do that effectively, they need to know what the story is!
What's really going on here? Are you guys just being different from Paizo for the sake of being different from Paizo, even when they've latched onto something that obviously works well? Or do you simply not have it all as planned out as you'd like us to believe? Because the reason that's been given makes so little sense that I'm sceptical about whether it could be the real reason.
And good news on the DDi pricing, but still going to limit v-minis?
As per the article:
Your subscription to the Game Table will give you access to unlimited copies of all of the miniatures we have produced.
Bolded for emphasis.
It would seem the problem with an overview is that the later points along the path are not fleshed out yet, or they want the flexibility to maneuver or change course along the way. A roadmap creates constraints. Otherwise, the official answer makes no sense. Splitting up an overview by Tier isn't ideal but it's better than no overview at all, and gives them a little flexibility to make the rest up as they go along.
On a less crappy note, my group is keenly looking forward to Character Builder!
think of a DM like a Project manager.
You have to have some idea of where you are going to get anywhere, and that involves having steps you need to take to get there.
So like the DDI is focusing on getting out APP #1 first, then APP #2, a DM for a game needs to know what steps he will have to get his "crew" through the adventure.
Randy! You should know this if you are in charge of DDI, and should be able to understand what I am tlaking about. So give the DMs for this adventure the same curtosy of knowing what is going on in advance.
I would hope you aren't creating DDI on the fly and winging it with no plan at all, but it seems by not understanding the reason behind DMs needing some sort of overview, you might just be doing that, and DDI will soon follow Gleemax.
I'll probably end up designing my own campaign in the Vale since I like the setting so much, but was hoping Scales of War would be able to take a lot of the load off of doing that and give me the tools to facilitate running an excellent and engaging game. Now the extra time it takes to do that falls solely on me.
So, to summarize, withholding the overview gains us virtually nothing. The players who would peek at an overview will still peek at an adventure as it comes out. However, giving us the summary gains us some significant advantages. Am I missing something? Maybe someone could please explain to me?
I suspect what you are missing is that they don't actually know where their AP is going. At least not with anywhere near enough specificity to actually provide us with the overview that we need.
I was a big fan of the previous Dungeon adventure paths and when I heard that Wizards was going to try their hand at it I was pleased. I even considered scrapping my current campaign (Rise of the Runelords being converted to 4e) so that I could run a "pure" 4th edition campaign. However, the quality of the adventures released thus far, combined with the "Scales of War" Dragon article (note the quotes) and now this boneheaded decision has me pretty much resigned to the fact that Dungeon is going to have a minimum of one full adventure worth of wasted space for the next 16 months.
I'm fairly frivolous with my rpg gaming dollars. Hell, I even bought the *useless* 4e character sheets (worst character sheets I've ever bought, and I've bought some stinkers). However, I'm seriously reconsidering whether I'm going to be blowing my cash on the DnD Insider.
Very good report IMO. Looks like the builder is close. :D
*snerk*
I'm a professional software developer. If a developer tells you that the UI is basically done, it's just backend work now, what he means is that it's only 25% done. It's one of the many reasons so many software projects ship late: management erroneously relates the UI's completeness with the overall completeness. Unless you're doing something insanely innovative the UI in a 2-d data crunching application is the easy part. Sure, putting pretty sliders and fake parchment backgrounds takes some time, but filling out forms based on user input and generating reports was a problem solved in the 70s.
As for the Scales overview, yeah, it's silly. It does help limit accidental spoilers, but the cost is too high. A GM needs to understand the big picture before committing to a campaign. He doesn't want to get 8 months in and realize he really dislikes where the game is going and need to essentially write his own ending that fits into parts he doesn't like. A GM with an overview can plan ahead and better cope with the players doing surprising things. What does work is waiting for the entire path to be released, then decide if he will run it. But then the spoiler problem is just as bad. However, it's not that bad. My group didn't start Shackled City until it was entirely complete, and yet we were entirely clueless and spoiler free.
Relatedly, as a player it sucks that you're getting charged for Dungeon. If you read it and make use of your subscription fee you screw your DM out of valuable content he can use to entertain you. If you skip it, you're not enjoying what you're paying for. This was the advantage of Dragon and Dungeon being different subscriptions; players wouldn't subscribe to Dungeon. It meant that Dungeon had a smaller readership, but it was the right readership.
That's a good point. They listened. It's just that the answer is "no."
My favorite example of this is the last insider update....
by Randy Buehler
"Probably not exactly the update you came to this column looking for, but it’s my column and I’m telling the story anyway."
Pretty typical attitude / mentality over there... especially in his department.
My favorite example of this is the last insider update....
by Randy Buehler
"Probably not exactly the update you came to this column looking for, but it’s my column and I’m telling the story anyway."
Pretty typical attitude / mentality over there... especially in his department.
Humorous, tongue-in-cheek, and filling space since there was little else to report right now and keeping communication open is still better than silence?
Awesome. I'd like to work in that department.
(Point being, you're going to see of them what you want to see. I found it humorous and a good way to fill space while keeping the channel of communication open. You see it as hostile, egotistical, and a waste of time I'm guessing. Only Randy knows for sure which of us may be correct.)
Based on that statement, combined with the job listings of the past week, I'm now fully convinced that they partially or completely scrapped previous code for the game table and are starting over on it from scratch. I'd put money on it.
Unless their programmers are hugely incompetent, I seriously doubt that is the case. The DRM portion of the code that limits a given v-mini to one instance on the table shouldn't really affect 99% of the rest of the codebase. That is, whether or not there's a variable for determining how many instances you might be able to have, the rendering, input, GUI etc. for the program would all still be the same.
Heck, even if the program's code didn't feature even this basic level of modularity (doubtful, as I said, since that would mean they hired the most noobish of noob programmers), they could simply set the number of instances variable to a large number, and it would work out the same way.
I'm hoping that they are hiring new developers to start work immediately on version 2.0. A system that is more widely compatible with non-windows operating systems (go linux!), and hopefully more robust. But thats probably just wishful thinking.
IMO opinion yup, wishful thinking. They have not yet collected a dollar for Windows only programing that has been being worked on for over a year and not ready for release, This clearly is not the time to start another project when the first is not providing any funds.
My favorite example of this is the last insider update....
by Randy Buehler
"Probably not exactly the update you came to this column looking for, but it’s my column and I’m telling the story anyway."
Pretty typical attitude / mentality over there... especially in his department.
Anything digital from WotC seems to be riddled with flawed ideas and concepts.
I'm hoping that they are hiring new developers to start work immediately on version 2.0. A system that is more widely compatible with non-windows operating systems (go linux!), and hopefully more robust. But thats probably just wishful thinking.
*sigh* I hear you man, as I type this on Linux laptop, with my fiancée using her Mac next to me. But it's not happening. They're focusing on making a shiny graphic set of applications and chose to bind themselves to the Windows API. Porting graphics heavy systems is a expensive, and hard to justify for a tenth of the market. Theoretically they might use WINE, but it's still a lot of work and the resulting Mac port would never work quite natively. (The Linux port wouldn't either, but we're more forgiving. :-)
The real shame is that the character builder wasn't written as a web application. Fundamentally making and maintaining a character is data entry and report generation. The web is really good at it. Add in some AJAX and you can get something that looks sharp and is a pleasure to use. By accepting that it would be a bit less pretty (but only a bit), and taking advantage of the ease of doing updates, the creator could have shipped earlier, maybe even on time! It would have been portable to every modern operating system. You could have looked up your character on your high end cell phone! WotC even would have liked it because you absolutely would need a subscription; it would be impossible to pass infringing copies around. Such an awesome opportunity, but it's gone. And assuming the new license doesn't massively mellow out, it's extremely difficult (but not impossible!) for someone else to write it instead.
*sigh*
Based on that statement, combined with the job listings of the past week, I'm now fully convinced that they partially or completely scrapped previous code for the game table and are starting over on it from scratch. I'd put money on it.
The same day this (DI #5) was posted with this passage:
"The UI is in pretty good shape now and most of the remaining work is on the “back end.”"
WotC posted the following job opening:
Sr. Visual Designer
POSITION PURPOSE
If you have ambition, talent and a desire to work as part of an energetic and fun environment this is the right role for you. You will be expected to design and prototype beautiful UI graphics, supporting assets for key content, and subtle animations for games and brand websites. You must have a fantastic aesthetic sense, the ability to work in several styles, and solid production skills to make your designs a reality. You will work closely with User Interface Designers and Art Directors while following up with software engineers to make sure that your designs are implemented according to your specifications. This is a fantastic opportunity for someone who thrives on making an impact.
Work on the "back end" indeed.
Work on the "back end" indeed.
That would be the customers they are talking about. ;)
After working on, writing for, editing, developing, and connecting Adventure Paths for pretty much the last five years or so, I suspect that I'm one of the ones who knows the most about what works and what doesn't work for Adventure Paths. They're really, REALLY complicated to create, and even now, going into the seventh one I've helped create, I'm still learning how to do it.
But one of the first things I learned was how important those campaign summaries are.
They're vital. They not only let the GM feel like he or she is an organic and valuable part of the thing (which they are!), but they also serve the same role that a movie trailer does; they get folk excited about the coming campaign. If they don't get folk excited and drive them off... that's a failure of the Adventure Path itself, NOT a failure of the campaign overview.
As for how to get them out there for GMs to check out... that's a little more complicated. Do you put them in the first volume of the AP? Do you preview them in the volume just before? Do you put them online? Do you do all three? Will readers get angry that you're "robbing potential content" from a volume because 2 or 4 pages are "wasted?" All important questions.
This thread's actually VERY educational to me, and the main thing I'm taking away from it is confirmation that AP outlines are indispensable to an Adventure Path, and that the best place to print them is alongside the first installment of the first adventure. We did this with "Rise of the Runelords," but in a weird format. With "Second Darkness," I think we've finally hit on the best way to do them; a two-page outline that appears at the back of the product alongside the first adventure. I suspect it's probably also not a bad idea to throw the thing up online somewhere too, so that prospective GMs can check out the upcoming AP without having to shell out 20 bucks or whatever for the outline. That said, chat rooms and mesageboards and blogs and product briefs are also all great ways to get the information out there—we use all four of them for Pathfinder, and despite the fact that we've revealed major spoilers in so doing, sales of Adventure Path products have only increased.
Don't keep secrets from the GM is the moral of the story, I guess!
Warning! The following excerpts from Scepter Tower of Spellgard are intended for the eyes of your Dungeon Master. If you’ll be participating in this adventure as a player, we advise you to stop reading now... and your Dungeon Master insists you stop reading now!
Work on the "back end" indeed.
Wow.
So I'll go ahead and ask it, in the hope that someone with WotC might respond: If the UI is in "pretty good shape", why is Wizards looking to hire a Sr. developer to apparently work on that very same thing?
If the UI is in "pretty good shape", why is Wizards looking to hire a Sr. developer to apparently work on that very same thing?
I think WotC deserves some benefit of the doubt. The listing was also looking for someone into Magic, so they're not hiring someone just for DDI. If DDI was that bad, it wouldn't be a shared position; it would be all DDI. Furthermore, "pretty good shape" referred to the Character Builder. Perhaps they're looking for someone to work on the UI for the virtual tabletop. Or, even, for as yet unannounced tools, like the handful of minitools they're already released.
I think WotC deserves some benefit of the doubt. The listing was also looking for someone into Magic, so they're not hiring someone just for DDI. If DDI was that bad, it wouldn't be a shared position; it would be all DDI. Furthermore, "pretty good shape" referred to the Character Builder. Perhaps they're looking for someone to work on the UI for the virtual tabletop. Or, even, for as yet unannounced tools, like the handful of minitools they're already released.
WotC had the benefit of the doubt when they announced at Gen Con last year that all of the DDI would be ready when 4E was released.
WotC had the benefit of the doubt when they announced at DDXP this year that all of the DDI would be a beta preview when 4E was released.
WotC had the benefit of the doubt when they announced at the release of 4E that all of the DDI would be a beta preview shortly.
WotC had the benefit of the doubt when they announced at Gen Con last year the e-zines would be of full quality during the preview period starting in September.
WotC had the benefit of the doubt when they announced in November that the e-zines would be going bi-monthly during the preview period but would still be compiled monthly, and everything would be ready when 4E was released.
WotC had the benefit of the doubt at DDXP this year that the e-zines would be going to subscription when 4E was released.
WotC had the benefit of the doubt when they announced just before Gen Con this year that the e-zines would be going to subscription "soon", and that they were fully ready.
WotC has had "some" benefit of the doubt.
When you add the various issues of a major system overhauled in 4E less than a month after release, a full scale corporate reorganization, and posts for more than one programmer job after both the initially announced released date and the corporate reorganization announcement, then the coincidence of a publicity document claiming the UI is in "pretty good shape" on the same day they post for a senior visual designer, to go along with the position for an associate visual designer that had been posted two weeks earlier, and those positions still being available a week after that . . .
A better term would be "slight suspension of disbelief".
And then add in some of the other comments on the relationship between the UI being finished and the project being finished, and we start heading right on past "some suspension of disbelief".
Samwise: I was specifically referring to the possibility of the job opening being unrelated to the character builder.
Yes, I know.
At this point though, their statements about when elements of the DDI will be ready inspires a rather high degree of "I will believe it when it is released."
More likely it suggests there may be some issues with the current visual designer, and a new senior and associate might well wind up redesigning everything on the character builder as their first task.
POSITION PURPOSE
The D&DI Senior Technical Producer manages back-end technology deployments; coordinating with Operations, Architecture, Dev, Build Management, and QA to ensure successful deployment and maintenance of product and back-end releases. This position reports to the D&DI Studio Director
This is really not helping me control my inherent cynicism.
I'd just like to say that this message board seems to be a large number of people slagging off Wizards, and only a very small number defending them. While I agree that no overview is taking stuff away from the DM, and the Star Pact warlocks were a bit over the top, that dosn't mean that everyone has to start shouting about WotC failure to do their job. It's their site, running to support players. And at the moment it's still free. Try to just enjoy that.
Hey.
I'd just like to say that this message board seems to be a large number of people slagging off Wizards, and only a very small number defending them.
That's because were not sheep when we see something is screwed up we say something when your not paying for your V minis remember to thank those people who were slagging off Wizards.
While I agree that no overview is taking stuff away from the DM, and the Star Pact warlocks were a bit over the top, that dosn't mean that everyone has to start shouting about WotC failure to do their job. It's their site, running to support players. And at the moment it's still free. Try to just enjoy that.
If we don't say anything about things that don't work things will continue not to work. yes it's their site but if the sites putting borken things in my game that I pay them to play I feel the need to let them know.