| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 04 Feb 2008 : 19:47:33
Okay, so I have been reading the "new online version" of the Dungeon and Dragon magazines for five months now, and I have not seen anything that strikes me as it being any different than when it was just Wizards.com/DnD. The articles seem the same. Nothing at all seems to come close to what it was like leafing through the pages of either magazine. Does anyone else have this feeling? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Diffan |
Posted - 28 Oct 2009 : 00:13:05
quote:
Originall posted by Kiaransalyn
And mostly they wanted to role-play. Killing goblins, etc was not what kept them gripped. So I wonder, just like you, why WotC didn't take that option.
I think mainly because role-play and that area of gaming requires little, if any, rules. Even when I mostly played 3e/3.5, I ( and our group) viewed game mechanics as mostly combat oriented.
This is probably a big reason WotC went with that style (and software/online articles) of the game. |
| goatunit |
Posted - 27 Oct 2009 : 22:49:58
I signed on in the first month, and was there for about six months (I think). I was on the three-month payment cycle and paid twice. I was there for the online gaming table that was advertised as if it were going to be available as soon as the PHB dropped, but actually had no release date.
I stuck around for a bit, but it was pretty expensive. And after four months of 4E, we decided we didn't like it anymore and I couldn't justify keeping my subscription since it's pretty useless for a 3.5 GM. |
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 27 Oct 2009 : 19:14:08
quote:
Originally posted by skychrome
Right. Well, what a shame, the PW sounds really interesting to me. Would have loved to play on that server! 
It was very good fun. The last time I searched for the old forums they were jam packed for of spam so I didn't linger long enough to see if there was still any life. |
| skychrome |
Posted - 27 Oct 2009 : 15:42:32
Right. Well, what a shame, the PW sounds really interesting to me. Would have loved to play on that server! |
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 27 Oct 2009 : 14:28:37
quote:
Originally posted by skychrome
Kiaransalyn, as you use the past tense, what happened with your Persistent World?
It fell apart, is the best way of answering that question.
First the forums got hacked and the chief administrator took ages setting up a new forum. Having the server host go silent for weeks and months at a time didn't help either.
From my own point of view, when I was involved I had a lot of free time on my hands. But then I moved to a new job in The Netherlands, which required a lot more of my time and effort, so I had to scale back my duties as Head DM, forum admin', builder, NPC Team leader and writer of the Players Guide.
We move on, I guess. |
| skychrome |
Posted - 23 Oct 2009 : 20:35:43
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
I often wonder what could have happened had WotC taken an online setting, such as we had, and got better servers, a few paid DM's and asked people to pay a small monthly subscription (say $5). I think it could have taken off.
As you can probably tell, I miss that time.
Kiaransalyn, as you use the past tense, what happened with your Persistent World? |
| Diffan |
Posted - 23 Oct 2009 : 19:12:18
I too have wavered between getting it and not. At first I felt it wasn't needed and useless and just another way for WotC to get my money. But as I read about articles that come out of DDi, the benefits of their download-able programs, and the fact that I just got a laptop (i know, welcome to 2009!) have increased my interest of DDi. So it's going on the x-mas list I give to my wife (she's so understanding, lol). |
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 20 Oct 2009 : 20:46:12
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
What the ... ?
Thanks for that link Ashe, I missed that last November when you posted it. I'm reminded of Winston Smith and the chocolate ration for some reason. |
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 20 Oct 2009 : 19:57:33
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Having said that, I will note that the published format of Baur's KOBOLD QUARTERLY, has helped eased some of the pain I feel over the absence of a quality magazine dealing with one of my favorite activities. He should be commended for his efforts to maintain a tradition that I've loved for so long.
Thanks Sage,
I was going to ask about Kobold Quarterly. But you've answered my question. |
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 20 Oct 2009 : 19:53:25
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It is my opinion that someone decided MMOs were dominating because of the game play (and not because of convenience), so they tried to emulate that.
Agreed. For me, the appeal of a game engine/computer game/MMORPG is that the mechanics are handled for you. To use the horrible terminology, the crunch is done for you. What keeps players hooked is the story-line, after a while levelling up becomes boring.
For my players in Menzoberranzan, what gripped them was the various situations where their PC's had to talk their way out of situations or in to them. One of the more popular areas of the PW was the main tavern/drinking pits. Players would just hang out there, chatting in-character - a lovely sign that the setting worked for them.
I often wonder what could have happened had WotC taken an online setting, such as we had, and got better servers, a few paid DM's and asked people to pay a small monthly subscription (say $5). I think it could have taken off.
As you can probably tell, I miss that time. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 Oct 2009 : 17:22:27
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I've maintained for a while that a good, reasonably-priced virtual tabletop would have done far more to revitalize D&D than a new ruleset would (and that's ignoring the issues this particular new ruleset caused). It doesn't even have to have snazzy graphics -- I think a simple interactive whiteboard, with squares or hexes, would do it, so long as it included a good voicechat system, a system for passing notes, and a dice roller. Actually, I think that a lack of integral graphics would be better -- that way, you'd not need a good video card to get the most enjoyment out of it.
Anything else -- including rulesets, tiles, dungeon dressing, mobs -- could be add-on packs for a small charge. Doing it that way allows people to play whatever version of whatever game they want. And it accomplishes the main objective -- it gets people together to play. Sure, it's virtual, but if the choices are virtual or not playing at all, I think most people would go for virtual.
That tallies with my own thoughts too.
When I was heavily involved in a Neverwinter Nights Persistent World, we had lots of players wanting lots of games. We had players from all over the globe, some setting alarm clocks so they could be on-line as players from other sides of the world.
And mostly they wanted to role-play. Killing goblins, etc was not what kept them gripped. So I wonder, just like you, why WotC didn't take that option.
It is my opinion that someone decided MMOs were dominating because of the game play (and not because of convenience), so they tried to emulate that. |
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 20 Oct 2009 : 16:13:41
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I've maintained for a while that a good, reasonably-priced virtual tabletop would have done far more to revitalize D&D than a new ruleset would (and that's ignoring the issues this particular new ruleset caused). It doesn't even have to have snazzy graphics -- I think a simple interactive whiteboard, with squares or hexes, would do it, so long as it included a good voicechat system, a system for passing notes, and a dice roller. Actually, I think that a lack of integral graphics would be better -- that way, you'd not need a good video card to get the most enjoyment out of it.
Anything else -- including rulesets, tiles, dungeon dressing, mobs -- could be add-on packs for a small charge. Doing it that way allows people to play whatever version of whatever game they want. And it accomplishes the main objective -- it gets people together to play. Sure, it's virtual, but if the choices are virtual or not playing at all, I think most people would go for virtual.
That tallies with my own thoughts too.
When I was heavily involved in a Neverwinter Nights Persistent World, we had lots of players wanting lots of games. We had players from all over the globe, some setting alarm clocks so they could be on-line as players from other sides of the world.
And mostly they wanted to role-play. Killing goblins, etc was not what kept them gripped. So I wonder, just like you, why WotC didn't take that option. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 Oct 2009 : 15:32:52
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Yes, it's a bit of thread necromancy, but I came across this article on a Virtual Tabletop over at Gnome Stew and the only thing I can think of is that WotC/Hasbro is REALLY missing the boat...
I've maintained for a while that a good, reasonably-priced virtual tabletop would have done far more to revitalize D&D than a new ruleset would (and that's ignoring the issues this particular new ruleset caused). It doesn't even have to have snazzy graphics -- I think a simple interactive whiteboard, with squares or hexes, would do it, so long as it included a good voicechat system, a system for passing notes, and a dice roller. Actually, I think that a lack of integral graphics would be better -- that way, you'd not need a good video card to get the most enjoyment out of it.
Anything else -- including rulesets, tiles, dungeon dressing, mobs -- could be add-on packs for a small charge. Doing it that way allows people to play whatever version of whatever game they want. And it accomplishes the main objective -- it gets people together to play. Sure, it's virtual, but if the choices are virtual or not playing at all, I think most people would go for virtual. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 20 Oct 2009 : 13:47:59
Yes, it's a bit of thread necromancy, but I came across this article on a Virtual Tabletop over at Gnome Stew and the only thing I can think of is that WotC/Hasbro is REALLY missing the boat... |
| scererar |
Posted - 19 Feb 2009 : 03:32:00
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
-Well I broke down and subscribed for the next year today. I really like the Rules Compendium. 
BRIMSTONE
While I do not dig the compendium as much, I truly enjoy the Dragon and Dungeon magazines. |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 19 Feb 2009 : 02:26:34
-Well I broke down and subscribed for the next year today. I really like the Rules Compendium.
BRIMSTONE |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 09 Jan 2009 : 13:47:47
One of the blogs I read--and I'm sorry, but I've got too many on my RSS reader and don't know which off the top of my head--does this "Behind the Wall" feature that consists of capsule descriptions and reviews of the pay content, concluding with a guess at how "worth it" folks might find each piece. Next time one pops up I'll try to remember to link it in here. It's Dragon Avenue or Gnome Stew, one of those or their allies. |
| scererar |
Posted - 09 Jan 2009 : 03:39:19
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
I'm subscribed, and alas, can't offer any insight with log-in difficulties as I haven't experienced any. I signed up purely for the magazines (I use Ema's for my character sheets and am Mac based anyway) and have found it more than worth it just for those, but have also actually wound up using the Compendium more than I thought I would have.
I have not had any problems either, other than than the occasional not being able to log onto the website period, which all sites encounter from time to time to get kinks worked out. I have also gone through the motions to try and end the auto renew to see if I could and did not appear to have any troubles to do so, but I did not try to do it 100%. As with all things, it takes time. I truly am enjoying the 2 magazines. I can see though, that if a person is not into 4E, these would not be useful. |
| silverwizard |
Posted - 09 Jan 2009 : 00:00:01
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
I switched my alignment from Lawful Good to Chaotic Good, and lo and behold! I now fully understand their boards! 
So how come you're still a Purple Dragon Knight then? I thought they were supposed to be lawful! 
On a more serious note, I'd recommend to my fellow scribes to go along with PDK's suggestion. Once you get used to this (admittedly) chaotic board structure, you'll find that the Paizo boards are the exact opposite of the WotC boards (and that can only be a good thing). |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 08 Jan 2009 : 23:46:35
I'm subscribed, and alas, can't offer any insight with log-in difficulties as I haven't experienced any. I signed up purely for the magazines (I use Ema's for my character sheets and am Mac based anyway) and have found it more than worth it just for those, but have also actually wound up using the Compendium more than I thought I would have. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 08 Jan 2009 : 23:34:12
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Gang Falconhand
So has ANYONE here subscribed to DDi?
I've wavered back and forth on whether or not to subscribe, but after reading some feedback about it (such as on this very website), I've decided not to, at least not at this time.
I'm the same. And the recent comments several scribes here at Candlekeep have made about the difficulties some members have encountered when trying to cancel their subscription has put me further off the idea of signing-up for DDi.
|
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 08 Jan 2009 : 23:13:04
quote:
Originally posted by Gang Falconhand
So has ANYONE here subscribed to DDi?
I've wavered back and forth on whether or not to subscribe, but after reading some feedback about it (such as on this very website), I've decided not to, at least not at this time. |
| scererar |
Posted - 08 Jan 2009 : 14:39:44
quote:
Originally posted by Gang Falconhand
quote:
Originally posted by scererar
I have for the past couple of months for the Dragon and Dungeon Magazines. Not as much FR stuff as I initially thought, but I truly dig most of the content.
I am not all that interested in the other features available now or in the creation process still. I remain hopeful that as the new edition gets into things more, we will see much more FR content in the magazines.
Do you now, or do you intend in the foreseeable future, to play in 4E?
yes. I have switched to the 4E rule set and 4E realms. I still have and will utilize FR lore from all editions and will set campaigns both before and after the Spellplague. |
| Gang Falconhand |
Posted - 08 Jan 2009 : 09:30:53
quote:
Originally posted by scererar
I have for the past couple of months for the Dragon and Dungeon Magazines. Not as much FR stuff as I initially thought, but I truly dig most of the content.
I am not all that interested in the other features available now or in the creation process still. I remain hopeful that as the new edition gets into things more, we will see much more FR content in the magazines.
Do you now, or do you intend in the foreseeable future, to play in 4E? |
| scererar |
Posted - 08 Jan 2009 : 02:21:29
quote:
Originally posted by Gang Falconhand
So has ANYONE here subscribed to DDi?
I must admit that in a moment of weakness I almost just did. Even though we don't play in 4E.
I have for the past couple of months for the Dragon and Dungeon Magazines. Not as much FR stuff as I initially thought, but I truly dig most of the content.
I am not all that interested in the other features available now or in the creation process still. I remain hopeful that as the new edition gets into things more, we will see much more FR content in the magazines. |
| Zorro |
Posted - 07 Jan 2009 : 20:05:26
I haven't, and I can say with certainty that I never will.
Zorro |
| Gang Falconhand |
Posted - 07 Jan 2009 : 11:32:36
So has ANYONE here subscribed to DDi?
I must admit that in a moment of weakness I almost just did. Even though we don't play in 4E. |
| scererar |
Posted - 25 Nov 2008 : 13:13:12
quote:
Originally posted by Na-Gang
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm interested in the Baphomet article currently up on the DDI site, but I'm not paying just for that one article.
I only just saw this. I know I shouldn't comment because I haven't seen this new article (because obviously I don't subscribe) but I don't imagine it will be very different (apart from 4E stats guff) from the last time they published Baphomet's Demonomicon entry in Dragon issue 341.
It is a 13 page article focusing on his plans, allies and enemies. He is supposed to be stated out in the manual of the planes source. I don't have the dragon article from #341 to know if it is regurgitated info, but it is obviously a 4E update/conversion. |
| Na-Gang |
Posted - 25 Nov 2008 : 11:16:01
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm interested in the Baphomet article currently up on the DDI site, but I'm not paying just for that one article.
I only just saw this. I know I shouldn't comment because I haven't seen this new article (because obviously I don't subscribe) but I don't imagine it will be very different (apart from 4E stats guff) from the last time they published Baphomet's Demonomicon entry in Dragon issue 341.
If D&DI was putting out completely new stuff, instead of repeating articles I might be slightly interested. As it is I'm faintly disgusted that WotC would try and sell this again. |
| Purple Dragon Knight |
Posted - 18 Nov 2008 : 05:20:38
The trick is to do what you did after you first came here a few times: bookmark their "main" forum page (where they list all the topics/sections)
There are indeed a vast sea of posts over there, so unlike here, you'll have to accept that you can't read them all.
You can follow your favorite threads there by making a post; from there on end, you'll see these threads marked with a black dot, indicating they are one of your contributed threads (so, while CK does not need such a feature due to the smaller thread count, Paizo compensates by giving you a "flagging" tool...) |
|
|
