Candlekeep Forum

Candlekeep Forum

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

Forgotten Realms Products

D&D Core Products

Legends and Lore

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:

UserName:

Password:

Format Mode:

Format:

Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON

Smilies

Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.

T O P I C R E V I E W
Christopher_Rowe	Posted - 15 Feb 2011 : 19:38:35 Interesting first entry of a new regular column from D&D Lead Designer Mike Mearls up today. It's on the free side of the paywall.
28 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
Diffan	Posted - 18 Feb 2011 : 15:31:19 quote: Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie On the Tomb of Horrors question, I'm running the 4e ToH in my 4e FR campaign (having converted a lot of it to be Realms specific), and it looks quite promising. There are four chapters, which are connected adventures that cover about one level range each: 10-11, 14-15, 18-19, 22-23 or thereabout. It isn't a straight shot from level 10 to level 22, but rather a series of milestones you want to imbed into your campaign. Cheers You know, I've been thinking of getting that adventure and throwing my PCs through it but I'm not totally sure where to place such an epic dungeon. Many people think the best place is Warlock's Crypt, which I'm not totally against, but that would mean changing Acerak(sp?) to Larloch. Is that what you did or did you go another route altogether? I'm also interested in trying a different area of Faerûn that would fit this adventure well. Suggestions? Edit: Hey, my 1000 post! YAY
Erik Scott de Bie	Posted - 18 Feb 2011 : 15:25:21 I for one am very optimistic re: the OP, and look forward to seeing what comes next. On the Tomb of Horrors question, I'm running the 4e ToH in my 4e FR campaign (having converted a lot of it to be Realms specific), and it looks quite promising. There are four chapters, which are connected adventures that cover about one level range each: 10-11, 14-15, 18-19, 22-23 or thereabout. It isn't a straight shot from level 10 to level 22, but rather a series of milestones you want to imbed into your campaign. Cheers
Diffan	Posted - 18 Feb 2011 : 13:31:01 quote: Originally posted by Arik I'll take a look at 4E Tomb of Horrors ... though this particular product was infamous as a brutally unfair TPK deathtrap in 1E and each subsequent release has softened and nerfed it down. The last version I read was quite disappointing, not a lot more dangerous than a pack of kittens. Just a little rant, though this trend is not really WotC's fault, at least not their current design staff ... oh well, 4E ToH will complete the set. Hmmm, I never had the chance to play ToH in v3.5 and I haven't had the chance to get a good look at 4E's adaptation. I'm assuming the maps would be the same, and it's supposed to take your character from levels 10/11 through 20 I think.
Ayrik	Posted - 17 Feb 2011 : 20:37:47 I'll take a look at 4E Tomb of Horrors ... though this particular product was infamous as a brutally unfair TPK deathtrap in 1E and each subsequent release has softened and nerfed it down. The last version I read was quite disappointing, not a lot more dangerous than a pack of kittens. Just a little rant, though this trend is not really WotC's fault, at least not their current design staff ... oh well, 4E ToH will complete the set.
Diffan	Posted - 17 Feb 2011 : 18:24:23 quote: Originally posted by Arik [quote] Almost as good would be published 4E conversions of classic D&D settings; Planescape, Spelljammer, Ravenloft, etc. Faerûn is awesome but it's only one corner of the vaster D&D cosmos. I think they're still working on that as each year a new setting has been released (FR in '08, Eberron in '09, Dark Sun in '10). I don't consider the Ravenloft board game a setting release but I hear it has some great stuff if you want to run a D&D campaign there. They've also converted some other things from v3.5 to 4E like the Examplars of Evil supplement (a plug-n-play encounter approach) and the Tomb of Horrors. I know they haven't announced what setting they'll do this year (or if they're even going to do one) but I'm banking on it being Dragonlance. I doubt Ravenloft will see a full setting detail with a Campaign Book, Player's Guide, and published Adventure. More likely, we'll see a couple of DDI articles and possible a published adventure. Besides, the book Heroes of Shadow combined with Open Grave should be all the info you need to run a Ravenloft game, with some additional help from 3E and 2E/AD&D sources.
Wooly Rupert	Posted - 17 Feb 2011 : 11:50:23 quote: Originally posted by Arik quote: Mace Hammerhand -- bring back the PDFs of past editions, or even offer print on demand for said older stuff This particular suggestion is something that I'd love to see. For customers like me (DM/player/collector) it's an opportunity to obtain books that are otherwise inaccessible. For WotC it's almost like free money: they don't have to put any serious work into these old books, maybe just change some cover text and a little legal smallprint. For Wizbro I'm not so sure ... pre-4E (especially d20-compatible material) might be contrary to their existing strategy for the D&D brand. It still seems like an idea that's worth putting on the table for consideration. I'd even subscribe to evil DDI if it was the key to unlocking these books, though I can't speak for everybody. Almost as good would be published 4E conversions of classic D&D settings; Planescape, Spelljammer, Ravenloft, etc. Faerûn is awesome but it's only one corner of the vaster D&D cosmos. Yeah, the free money aspect of it is what makes me wonder about that decision... Having those pdfs out there may not have brought in much money, but it brought in some, and certainly didn't cost WotC anything. It very much comes across as a knee-jerk reaction, too. The issue was the pirating of 4E books, the response was removing legal downloads from prior editions. I still fail to see the logic there... And as has been pointed out, now that those pdfs are no longer legally available, and the alternative WotC promised has yet to even be mentioned by them, it means that people wanting those pdfs either have to not get them, or get them illegally. As a result of piracy, they took steps that could lead to the increase of piracy.
Ayrik	Posted - 17 Feb 2011 : 08:47:23 quote: Mace Hammerhand -- bring back the PDFs of past editions, or even offer print on demand for said older stuff This particular suggestion is something that I'd love to see. For customers like me (DM/player/collector) it's an opportunity to obtain books that are otherwise inaccessible. For WotC it's almost like free money: they don't have to put any serious work into these old books, maybe just change some cover text and a little legal smallprint. For Wizbro I'm not so sure ... pre-4E (especially d20-compatible material) might be contrary to their existing strategy for the D&D brand. It still seems like an idea that's worth putting on the table for consideration. I'd even subscribe to evil DDI if it was the key to unlocking these books, though I can't speak for everybody. Almost as good would be published 4E conversions of classic D&D settings; Planescape, Spelljammer, Ravenloft, etc. Faerûn is awesome but it's only one corner of the vaster D&D cosmos.
Shemmy	Posted - 17 Feb 2011 : 07:53:53 quote: Originally posted by Matt James I didn't get to read through all of the replies, but I wanted to comment on the Hasbro stock comment. D&D is such a small brand that it could not have any significant impressionable effect on the corporations profit loss :p Pretty much. D&D is a drop in the bucket for Hasbro. It's relatively rare for WotC as a whole to get mentioned in Hasbro's quarterly reports. The only times recently that I recall it happening were mentions of Magic having a banner year for WotC and on the opposite side of the spectrum, them taking a serious bath on DDI expenditures a while back. I wouldn't read into the overall Hasbro sales as indicative of WotC, though if the company as a whole suffers it might cause downstream contractions in budgets (depending on how each business segment is funded).
Ayrik	Posted - 17 Feb 2011 : 01:22:27 Valid observation, Matt. I did qualify (and want to repeat) that I'm not an expert in such analysis, hard information is sparse, largely speculative, and probably based on a healthy dose of heresay, assumption, and spiteful opinionated bias. I also don't want to seem like an hardcore 4E hater. It's not "my kind" of D&D, it's taken the setting and rules in some directions I personally find disagreeable ... but I still buy (and play) it a little and recognize that it's actually a good game, easy to consolidate when viewed as an entirely "different" game. Plus of course I freely adapt some excellent 4E elements into my pre-4E gaming. Taken for what it is (as opposed to what I expect it to be), 4E is fantastic. Still, MM's announcement looks like a promising initiative that (I believe) can develop into something worthwhile. Maybe WotC has a history of seriously burning grognards, or maybe the old fandom just exaggerates the impact. I laud this idea, and I'm willing to see where this idea goes and offer constructive criticism/input, but I'm not willing to make the effort of talking to a barely accessible unknown wizard who refuses to ever leave the security of his tower.
Matt James	Posted - 16 Feb 2011 : 23:30:01 I didn't get to read through all of the replies, but I wanted to comment on the Hasbro stock comment. D&D is such a small brand that it could not have any significant impressionable effect on the corporations profit loss :p
Dalor Darden	Posted - 16 Feb 2011 : 23:20:31 quote: Originally posted by Wooly Rupert quote: Originally posted by Arik I think WotC could demonstrate sincerity by actually seeking out their audience. That is, instead of hiding somewhere obscure deep within the bowels of wizards.com they should be actively visiting places like Candlekeep to establish this sort of dialogue. Why would those of us who hate spellplague, timejump, 4E, etc ever bother to go hunting around the Exclusively-4E Wizards forums? I personally refuse to have an user account there, just on principle. Pay for a DDI subscription? Get serious. There's reasons why we congregate in places that accept (or promote) older D&D editions ... so serious efforts to talk should be brought to us instead of merely announced where the stockholders can be directed to see it. That's a very good point. I myself refuse to go back to the WotC forums because I was wrongfully banned from there. Don't worry...they just had moderator envy...
Wooly Rupert	Posted - 16 Feb 2011 : 23:19:10 quote: Originally posted by Arik I think WotC could demonstrate sincerity by actually seeking out their audience. That is, instead of hiding somewhere obscure deep within the bowels of wizards.com they should be actively visiting places like Candlekeep to establish this sort of dialogue. Why would those of us who hate spellplague, timejump, 4E, etc ever bother to go hunting around the Exclusively-4E Wizards forums? I personally refuse to have an user account there, just on principle. Pay for a DDI subscription? Get serious. There's reasons why we congregate in places that accept (or promote) older D&D editions ... so serious efforts to talk should be brought to us instead of merely announced where the stockholders can be directed to see it. That's a very good point. I myself refuse to go back to the WotC forums because I was wrongfully banned from there.
Ayrik	Posted - 16 Feb 2011 : 22:18:52 Remember that WotC is not a separate business unit; it is integrated into Hasbro and stuck with Brand Managers. No doubt everybody at WotC gets some input in major decisions, but Wizbro makes the ultimate call ... worse yet, decisions are made in the context of what is best for Hasbro overall, not one particular Hasbro-owned product, so maybe sometimes budgets and deadlines are tight and they liquidate things (like parts of the Realms) to meet projected expectations. Hasbro stockholders and investors play for money, and see D&D as just another (expendable) resource/asset which makes and costs some of that money every quarter annum. lol, also remember that I'm not part of Wizbro and ultimately only speculating on how things really work there. But it seems to me that this is an effort to get our feedback and ideas. Talk is cheap and WotC has cried wolf many times before, but I won't hold the current staff accountable for the failings of their exiled predecessors. I think WotC could demonstrate sincerity by actually seeking out their audience. That is, instead of hiding somewhere obscure deep within the bowels of wizards.com they should be actively visiting places like Candlekeep to establish this sort of dialogue. Why would those of us who hate spellplague, timejump, 4E, etc ever bother to go hunting around the Exclusively-4E Wizards forums? I personally refuse to have an user account there, just on principle. Pay for a DDI subscription? Get serious. There's reasons why we congregate in places that accept (or promote) older D&D editions ... so serious efforts to talk should be brought to us instead of merely announced where the stockholders can be directed to see it.
Mace Hammerhand	Posted - 16 Feb 2011 : 21:58:54 How could WotC mend some fences? a few suggestions: -- bring back the PDFs of past editions, or even offer print on demand for said older stuff -- broaden the bracket of what they consider "target-audience"... everyone who is not in the right bracket is basically ignored in surveys -- actually pay attention to said surveys -- maybe (in case of major changes) ASK the customers what they want (worked for Robin's death [a death in the family] in the 80s), who knows, the Spellplague might not have happened if the fans (not necessarily the Wizards forums) had been consulted If they want to mend the rifts, why not make the virtual tabletop non-system-related, allowing the games people want to play to actually be played there... and... maybe (and this is a so common sense idea the bean counters prolly never thought of it) use that data to actually adjust their own game plan so to speak... if there were more people using 3.5/Pathfinder rules than 4e rules, maybe it is time to realize they bet the farm on the wrong horse and try some damage control. I do not say I know the market. Frankly, I don't give a frack about the edition "wars" since, for me, D&D ended with 3.5, but the success of Pathfinder and the longevity of OGL based games should be an indicator that something is not right... And finally, despite the flood of 4e out there, it is time to iron over 3.5, call the entire thing AD&D and get a share of the market they abandoned back...
Ayrik	Posted - 16 Feb 2011 : 19:21:55 Apparently OGL never expires (provided full compliance with all terms is maintained indefinitely). quote: OPEN GAME LICENSE v 1.0a Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc 4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content 9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License. (my italics for emphasis) OGL shouldn't be confused with officially rescinded (D20) STL. Here is a good "legal" FAQ.
Wooly Rupert	Posted - 16 Feb 2011 : 18:22:42 quote: Originally posted by Arik The reasoning behind OGL has always confused me, but it's out there and it's a good thing, I love being able to pick through hundreds of companies publishing thousands of d20 materials. I wonder if Wizards has the legal right to revoke the license and terminate legal use of SRD material in public domain? (If so, it's mighty altruistic for them to keep floating out new SRD updates.) I am convinced the OGL was a brilliant maneuver, one of the smartest things WotC ever did. By allowing other game companies to use it with minimal restriction, it allowed for these other companies to intro their own settings, material, and variant rules, without having to develop their own game systems. This means that companies playing with other genres could get their material out there -- and thus attract crowds beyond the sword & sorcery bunch. So people that don't play D&D get interested in role-playing. And then, since they already know the rules, they can easily transition into D&D -- so the pool of available role-players increases without WotC doing a thing. Plus, with the OGL saying to use the PHB, people playing in other settings and genres are still giving money to WotC. It's a win-win for WotC, provided they don't change editions (oops! ). As I understand it, the OGL is out there forever -- if you signed up when it was active, you can use it as long as you want, or at least until you sign the GSL, which mandates that you publish 4E and only 4E. And that's why Paizo is able to run with it.
Quale	Posted - 16 Feb 2011 : 16:58:08 it's too late now wotc
arry	Posted - 16 Feb 2011 : 13:07:42 I do think that Mr. Mearls is trying to mend fences. It is obviously in WotC's interests to understand their customers and potential customers; it's a nice change to see them actually try Actions however, speak louder than words; I shall watch (with interest), to see what happens.
Ayrik	Posted - 16 Feb 2011 : 07:12:00 Agreed, many words little meaning, but that's standard salesman fluff, smiling PR marketing face, advertising, unremarkable. Regardless of opinions about WotC's past decisions, why the insistence on being haters now that (apparently) somebody has been assigned to hear out and address criticism? The WotC staff are probably well aware of public perception/opinion about the company's past business decisions, about snarling dislike for 4E, etc. Mr Mearls might be part of a manipulative plan masterminded by a greedy evil BBEG, or he might be part of a genuine initiative to start dialogue and attempt a little damage control. The damage is already done, why keep complaining instead of suggesting how to move forward? Let them hear what we want and maybe Wizards will publish some of it in future material ... continuing to bitch about what we don't want certainly isn't going to motivate them to make any extra effort to change what's already published. Honey and vinegar, maybe WotC is willing to consider changing policies, hell maybe they'll even publish some new pre-4E lore ... if we're able to make it worth their while. The reasoning behind OGL has always confused me, but it's out there and it's a good thing, I love being able to pick through hundreds of companies publishing thousands of d20 materials. I wonder if Wizards has the legal right to revoke the license and terminate legal use of SRD material in public domain? (If so, it's mighty altruistic for them to keep floating out new SRD updates.) The OSR movement has been around forever (though not by name), at least since 2E, nothing new about it at all. I don't think TSR and WotC should be faulted for "betraying" the diehard grognards and keeping their focus improvements and wider audiences. Do we fault the car or computer makers because they sell us "brand new" products that begin depreciating into obsolescence before we even walk out of the store? Grognards complain about everything new in their game (even OSRIC stuff written by other Grognards), that's just a fact. But they're the minority. We don't hear constant commentary about edition superiority from everybody in the vast majority, new players who cut their teeth on 4E and think the older stuff is interesting but half-useless, often wrong, and unplayable. I'll happily admit that I think 4E has some neat/cool features but is oversimplified, generic, and inoffensively "childlike" when compared to the "better" D&D game editions I personally prefer. That doesn't even touch the retcons, RSEs, and troubling lack of continuity I'd have to swallow between game editions. But if I really gave 4E a fair chance then why would I do any less for WotC? They haven't even asked for any money this time, lol.
Dark Wizard	Posted - 16 Feb 2011 : 06:17:35 The article spent quite a word count saying nothing much. I see nice sentiments, but despite Mike Mearl's no doubt positive (personal) intentions, they ring a bit hollow coming from the official platform of WotC. Wizards forgot or failed to realize they themselves, perhaps inadvertently, encouraged some of the animosity. At times during the 4E transition, Wizards used what amounted to juvenile negative campaigning to market 4E. They had to tear down 3e and related material to sell the new 4E material. This is on top of the usual resistance to any edition change. Their move was like spraying fuel onto the fire, with the needle on the gage blowing past ‘11’ and making advances at ‘12.’ Fans are simply building on that precedent. WotC didn’t just let the genie out of the bottle, they kicked it out with spiked boots and then smashed the bottle. It becomes difficult for them to harp the “we’re all D&D gamers” line now. Under their watch, the community splintered more than ever. With ready accessibility to internet resources and communications not present even in the days of the 2e-3e transition, these splinters are self-sustaining. Smaller, nimbler companies are past nipping at the heels of Wizards, they’ve graduated to biting them in the rear. WotC should worry about the fan base moving into niches, especially sections of the market outside of their influence. The 3e OGL variants are giving them a run for their money, using their old bag of abandoned tools no less. WotC also insufficiently addressed the OSR movement (forget old tools, this is like digging up neolithic flint and hemp to Macguyver up a castle with moat and drawbridge). Whole communities are thriving, playing D&D-like games that aren’t D&D.
Dalor Darden	Posted - 16 Feb 2011 : 04:41:35 I wouldn't read too much into this guys. The ENTIRE economy is poor, and this often translates even more into the entertainment industry as a whole. I would simply look at this as a good thing, not a bad thing in the least. Companies, at least smart companies (and more specific to us: entertainment companies), change direction in small ways constantly to try and find the best manner in which to deal with their customer base. This is an entirely common thing, and we will get to benefit from it. If you choose to see the darkness around the light as greater than the light, then you of course will be pre-occupied with the dark and not see what is revealed by the light...even if standing in the light itself.
Ayrik	Posted - 16 Feb 2011 : 04:05:02 HAS stock has apparently been performing poorly since about mid-Dec/2010. It could be a typical seasonal slump or it could be worrisome, I won't pretend to be any sort of stocks and securities expert or that a few quick linkies are valid arguments. I doubt that many people outside of the Wizbro echelons really know what sorts of numbers are involved ... real sales figures, costs, and profit margins ... how much impact one product line (D&D) from one company (WotC) in one niche (tabletop RPGs) in one industry (hobbies and games) really has in the Hasbro Galactic Imperium. A recurring pattern that I'll point out here, though, and worth thinking about in the context of MM's statements: quote: Hasbro and WotC: looking at the numbers ... Hasbro company officials have been selling their Hasbro stock far, far more than buying. That usually indicates the company officials are pretty certain the stock price is going to slide further. [HAS insider transactions] That's the kind of situation where a company would typically squeeze every department to slash their budget. So I wouldn't be shocked if Hasbro was squeezing WotC. I also wouldn't be shocked if if the WotC reps used that excuse whether or not it was true. In short, I'd look for them to be flexible on communication issues but not so much on bottom-line money issues
Diffan	Posted - 16 Feb 2011 : 03:26:48 I think it was a well written piece. To me, it shows that regardless of edition or setting, we're still doing the Basics: Sitting with our friends or gaming buddies, rolling dice, and telling fantastic stories. THATS what D&D is! Not auto-hit magic missile, not THAC0, not Skill Challenges, not Save or Die spells but those lasting memories that you remind your friends about at the bar 5 years later and have a good laugh. Sadly, I think we as a community (not just Candlekeep, but the whole RPG community) have lost that notion somewhere and dive into the nearest corner that supports our favorite system of D&D. So the question isn't "Can't we all just get along?" but "Why are we fighting and complaining in the first place?".
Tasker Daze	Posted - 16 Feb 2011 : 02:30:05 quote: Originally posted by althen artren Sounds like a sad attempt at Rodney King's: "Can't we all just get along." that's my impression, too.
Ayrik	Posted - 16 Feb 2011 : 00:12:11 quote: "One of the things I want to do is pose questions and topics to D&D players across the world, because my real purpose is to understand what you think about D&D. Once I know that, then I can better understand the game." Awesome. How does he interact with "us"? Through the Wizards forums?
althen artren	Posted - 16 Feb 2011 : 00:10:03 Sounds like a sad attempt at Rodney King's: "Can't we all just get along." I think at this point, their best option would be to publish crunch-free setting material, and then the dirty masses could pick which system they want to use it on. They will NEVER get the various camps back together again. (Spelling edits)
The Sage	Posted - 15 Feb 2011 : 23:54:54 I love these kinds of articles. And I'm slowly becoming accustomed to Mearls take on D&D. Looking forward to future submissions.
Dalor Darden	Posted - 15 Feb 2011 : 23:30:33 Looking forward to reading this bit along the way; looks interesting. I have to say from a business standpoint, it speaks a bit to damage control and customer retention...but that is a good thing and not a bad thing at all. Companies fail when they don't address their customer base. From a nostalgia viewpoint, I'm excited to see what his take on the past is and how he plans to mesh it with the future.

Candlekeep Forum

Snitz Forums 2000