4Edition. Do you like it?

[Jester of the FoS]

PayPal is mostly free (small fee for payments) and you can sign-up with any credit card and e-mail. They charge a minimal payment to your CC with a code attached that needs to be added onto the website to log-on the first time for them to double-check (as you need to be the one receiving the bill to get the code). It's reasonably secure and probably safer than just using your CC. And it's pretty much a given for eBay.

[Mortavius]

They had their priorities and decided to set their release date in stone, whether the game was ready or not.

Or perhaps they had to stick to their deadlines because of other issues? Printing contracts, artistic contracts, publishing legalities, payments for author's and artists work that had to be paid at a certain time, etc., etc. There could be a million and one reasons why the date was set when it was, that neither you or I are privy to.

I've been in the beta for three MMOs and have seen rapid-fire patching, updating, and changes to beta software.
The monster builder has been out for three months and nada. For a beta it is pretty solid and usable and will be nice when finished, but some progress would be nice. Over the course of its one-month beta the character builder had some heavy, heavy UI changes and constant improvements.

Fair enough, I wasn't disputing the speed of the patching, merely that it is a beta, and I personally, expect bugs. To be fair, I'm sure if you polled a general group of people over a general demographic (not just MMO's, which IMO don't compare to the Monster Builder for many reasons), you'd get people who share your opinion and those who have had experiences similar to the Monster Builder as it's going.

I haven't used the Monster Builder mutch except to play around with it, so I haven't really been bothered by the lack of updates that have been released.

[Rotipher of the FoS]

So it doesn't have Druids or Barbarians. Well, Druids were only added to the core line-up in Advanced 2E. And Barbarians had to wait till 3E (though they were in 1E, so that was more of a step-back on 2E's part.).

Just to nitpick: druids were a core class in 1E as well. A subclass under the cleric, yes, but that puts them on just as "iconic" a footing as paladins (a fighter subclass) back then. It's 2E that temporarily demoted them to a sample specialty priest.

[HuManBing]

They had their priorities and decided to set their release date in stone, whether the game was ready or not.

Or perhaps they had to stick to their deadlines because of other issues? Printing contracts, artistic contracts, publishing legalities, payments for author's and artists work that had to be paid at a certain time, etc., etc. There could be a million and one reasons why the date was set when it was, that neither you or I are privy to.

That's an astute list of possible externalities. But even if it is true, does it make a difference for the gamer in the end?

[Mortavius]

Does it make a difference? I would hope so. It does to me. It reminds me not to judge others until I know the whole story. As it relates to the releasing of 4E, I don't know the whole story. Therefore, I refuse to lay blame to them of not playtesting enough when I don't know all the facts.

And Rotipher, thank you for correcting me on the Druid issue; where 1E is concerned my knowledge becomes much hazier, as I never really played it; only looked over some of the source books. I thought that Druids weren't in the core PHB in 1E.

[HuManBing]

(This is a heavily condensed version of my original post, which was abstract and lengthy in the extreme.)

"Don't judge others till you know the whole story" is a commendable principle, but with limited applicability here. It works in interpersonal relationships, and (arguably less so) in the democratic political process, where the forums of discussion promote openness. It rarely applies to corporate entities unless you're dealing with a special type of corporation, such as a non-profit or a charitable corporation.

Corporations are politically and economically different from individuals. Economically, almost all tend to function internally as closed economies with command structures. Politically, their participation in public speech is generally geared towards suppressing the negative and promoting the positive. (e.g. Advertising.) The US government had to write in an entire federal statute forcing them to report simple economic data accurately - the infamous 1933 Securities Act.

It is naive to expect full and frank disclosure of negative news by the corporation. In the absence of a whistleblower, speculation (as I've said earlier) is the second best tool you've got, and there are definitely ways to speculate that are relatively scientific and reliable.

You may not like this, and you may not want to do this yourself - and that's perfectly fine. But this does not translate into a blanket ban on others doing the same. Most professional investors have to do this to some degree when judging stock viability for a company. And like it or not, when you buy into their product line for a system like a car, or a computer, or a multi-product game, you're becoming economically invested, even if it's just casually.


Conclusion:

1. The corporation is not a private individual. We do not owe it the social courtesy of "thou shalt not judge". There is an imbalance in corporation control over information, and it limits consumer's access to information: speculation is therefore a regrettable necessity. Done right, it can and does result in valuable, accurate insights and there is an entire legitimate industry of stockwatchers and professionals that do this. If you choose not to, that's fine, but the viewpoint that nobody else can legitimately do this is a very tough argument to sustain.

2. The consumer is not a charity. Economics assumes that consumers make rational decisions about quality and cost, and things like supply-chain holdups and scheduling delays are not excuses. (They may be explanations, but they are not excuses.) If Budweiser experiences a failure at their breweries and their regular bar drinkers switch to Coors beer, those consumers are not somehow "betraying" Budweiser - they're behaving like rational consumers.

Please also note that this post is about companies in general and not about WotC. Also note that I am not some sort of anti-corporate Marxist in my political leanings. My entire legal education was geared towards the future practice of corporate law.

[Mortavius]

Very good information HuManBing. Your knowledge of legal and corporate entities obviously exceeds mine. While I cannot refute any of your points, I also cannot bring myself to see WotC as only a company entity. I've had a tour of their offices in the past, and I've spoken with designers who worked there. I can only see them as individuals and people who have to deal with all sorts of issues in their business, not just solely the writing of their books.

Does this make mistakes like the skill check issue acceptable? Like you say, to some, maybe not. Personally, I think it does. But in light of your comments (and since I really can't force my views on others anyways), I have to accept that others may not. But I can't ignore some key facts that make it okay for me:

-- As I mentioned, there are a whole slew of details that can affect the publishing of a product, not just the writing of said product.

-- Some of the problems in question with 4E were fixed very quickly. This indicates that the designers either knew about them already and couldn't fix them in time for release, or that they quickly realized the mistakes when they were found, and made efforts to correct them.

For me, this makes it okay. Does that make me too nice and charitable? Maybe. But I can't just see WotC as a big faceless corporation that's just out for my money. Having come from the days of 2E where there was little to no public contact to today where I can go and have a tour of their offices, I have seen such a turn-around in their design that I can't see them as anything other than individuals.

[HuManBing]

Yes, absolutely. We pick and choose where to repose our trust, and if WotC has treated you well enough that you like them, and if you like their products then I say you've found a good provider.

Obviously others will have different metrics as to what they like or look for.

[HuManBing]

I voted. It's very important to vote.

?????

What are you on, HMB?

Irony.

^ I just noticed this post (way back from April), and it is questionably awesome.

If Nathan is referring to the musclebuilding drug known as "HMB" (beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid, popular with the East German women's swimming teams), then there is no "quesionably" about it. He has just entered an entirely new level of unbridled sheer unadulterated awesome in my book.


:love: Nathan

[Jester of the FoS]

They had their priorities and decided to set their release date in stone, whether the game was ready or not.

Or perhaps they had to stick to their deadlines because of other issues? Printing contracts, artistic contracts, publishing legalities, payments for author's and artists work that had to be paid at a certain time, etc., etc. There could be a million and one reasons why the date was set when it was, that neither you or I are privy to.

That's an astute list of possible externalities. But even if it is true, does it make a difference for the gamer in the end?

Releasing by deadlines is something that has become a pet peeve over the last decade with the creation of the internet.
It has become especially prevalent with video games. They know they can get 90% done and just patch the last 5% while it's being published and fix the remaining 5% over time.
4e makes me think it's happening to D&D. They set the release-dates roughly a full year ahead of time and there was no way they'd know if they would be ready.
To their credit, they shifted the deadlines when it became apparent people wanted all the books at once and not one-a-month (so it would be 2 months before you could play).

Not everyone uses the internet or knows where to look for updates to the game. There are probably groups out there still playing with the original stealth rules or using the old DCs.

[alhoon]

I'm going to revert my 4E adventure to a 3e Ravenloft high-action adventure. I'll run the 3e adventure in 5 weeks or so and I'll inform you on how it went.

At the time, I'm quite excited that I'll turn my 4E critters to 3e monsters. And because 3e Monsters take more ... time, to make, to defeat etc, it gives you more time to envision them and add to their story.

I.e the 4E 3rd level wererat skirmisher becomes a 9th level minion. It has an ability to cause a bit of ongoing damage and causes sickness. 5 of them go down in a span of 5-6 rounds with the PCs ignoring them for the 10th level skirmisher and soldier wererats paying no more attention to them than the columns, except when they were to use area attacks.

In 3rd Edition, they are trickier. First of all, while they go down again with a fireball or a single hit with powerattack, they do more damage. Sneak attack, poison etc. Also the chance to contact Lycanthropy makes them hard to ignore because of the "What if they get a 20?" thing.
So the PCs would care where they are in the battle map. And that prompts me to care how they look, are, think etc. They are not just "wererats" they are "X wererat with a patch on one eye, Y wererat with a bloodied skirt, Z wererat with broken teeth... " etc.

And let's not forget the lessons of 4E! ! ! The will have powers. Not just be 2nd level rogue wererats. I'll lend things from the book of nine swords and also give them extra abilities like those my players like to face. Oh, and a bonus to hit rolls. A special blessing of their Lord.

[Jester of the FoS]

Oh, and a bonus to hit rolls. A special blessing of their Lord.

Nothing says "cheese" quite like an arbitrary warrior level.

[alhoon]

Yes, but warrior levels give hit points and saves. On the other hand, they also give skills and feats so perhaps I'll go with your suggestion and just drop their hp total. Now that I think of it, dropping constitution would work, since the warrior level gives 2F.

Thanks Jester.

[Jester of the FoS]

I was also referring to the RPGA/Living Greyhawk practice of just tacking-on a warrior level to a monster, as NPC class levels are worth 1/2 a CR and you round down so it's a free HD, +1bab, and feat.

But it is also my standard way to beef monsters.

[alhoon]

I have a system to calculate CRs. I made a program using Neuron networks.
I include BAB, AC, hp, average damage and I get a CR equivalent. Then I adjust CR for abilities. It works very well and I've been using it for 7 years.