This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons  (Read 18971 times)

GhostNinja

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1064
  • I Like big Bots and I cannot Lie.
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #180 on: September 29, 2022, 11:31:07 PM »
Ok I changed it to one of the public domain ones.  Good to go
Ghostninja

Effete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #181 on: September 30, 2022, 02:50:02 AM »
Ok I changed it to one of the public domain ones.  Good to go

Nice!
Now delete all the 5e books you downloaded for free. ;D

Omega

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • O
  • Posts: 17093
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #182 on: September 30, 2022, 04:20:50 AM »
This isn't a new thing. I'd say that even in AD&D1, the -1 Strength +1 Dexterity for halflings wasn't intended to mean that 40% of the time an NPC halfling is stronger than an NPC human.

I think you're absolutely right there.

Look, if a Halfling is basically half of a man, their STR should top out around 9--half of 18. Or if we're trying to account for exceptional STR, maybe I could argue a halfling as possibly having as high as a 12 STR. Average STR for a halfling should maybe be 6, tops.

It goes to show just how far away from any attempts to model biology the game is written. I think the idea is indeed to allow PCs to vary. The game wanted to retain the least amount of differentiation possible to say something about the world. That, yeah, halflings are obviously weaker than humans to an extent great enough to break through the noise of the variation of individuals.

It's worth holding onto lest the game become abstract mush. It was actually suggested in the linked article for the game numbers to be entirely divorced from the lore. I can't think of a better sign to indicate we're dealing with people who just don't "get" roleplaying games at all.

What a bunch of pretentious drivel.

According to the MM halflings are 3+ft tall. With tallfellows being 4+ft tall, Stouts being the shortest if the mixed bloods are 3'6" (which does not jibe with the height range in the back of the DMG, but such is.)
Halfling STR caps at 17 and 14 for males and females. 17 With their average somewhere around 7-9.

Oh noes! D&D did exactly what you snidely proclaim it did not. Golly gee. What a surprise there.

GhostNinja

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1064
  • I Like big Bots and I cannot Lie.
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #183 on: September 30, 2022, 08:36:27 AM »

Nice!
Now delete all the 5e books you downloaded for free. ;D

Only have hardbound copies.  I dont buy .pdfs as they are unfinished products and I dont like having digital copies.

But yes, I know you were kidding
Ghostninja

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4013
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #184 on: September 30, 2022, 10:10:02 AM »
Ok I changed it to one of the public domain ones.  Good to go

Nice!
Now delete all the 5e books you downloaded for free. ;D
"I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request."

GhostNinja

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1064
  • I Like big Bots and I cannot Lie.
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #185 on: September 30, 2022, 10:27:36 AM »

"I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request."

Thats true.  Any other publisher I wouldn't keep .pdfs I havent paid for.  WOTC? Screw em.
Ghostninja

Osman Gazi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #186 on: September 30, 2022, 11:12:43 AM »

"I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request."

Thats true.  Any other publisher I wouldn't keep .pdfs I havent paid for.  WOTC? Screw em.

What I don't like is that I can't seem to find .pdfs legitimately available for 5e.  I have the core rules and a few other books, but .pdfs can be handy.  What would be wrong in having .pdfs of these for my own personal use?  Asking for a friend.

Lunamancer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #187 on: September 30, 2022, 01:16:27 PM »
What a bunch of pretentious drivel.

I'd suggest you look up the meaning of the word "drivel." As has already been done to death here, words have multiple meanings. But I feel fairly assured that you won't find the meaning of drivel to be "anything I don't like." As for pretentious, I would say a prime example of pretentious is using a word like drivel, especially incorrectly.

Quote
According to the MM halflings are 3+ft tall. With tallfellows being 4+ft tall, Stouts being the shortest if the mixed bloods are 3'6" (which does not jibe with the height range in the back of the DMG, but such is.)

Not sure what the relevance of any of this is. Or what the point of repeating it is. If it's in the core books, I already know it.

Quote
Halfling STR caps at 17 and 14 for males and females. 17 With their average somewhere around 7-9.

Oh noes! D&D did exactly what you snidely proclaim it did not. Golly gee. What a surprise there.

First, the correct word is "claim," not "proclaim." Secondly, the only one being snide is you.

Third, the facts you site 100% back up exactly what I said. Which is that the allowable range of halfling strength in D&D is far more generous than what one would expect biology to dictate. The range the game actually allows for is numerically closer to making all races equal than it is to what is "realistic." And that the game stops short of making all races equal using the least amount of differentiation possible to reinforce the fact that, yeah, there are differences.

It's the same reason why shields seem under-rated in AD&D. Because the original idea was just you've got these 4 general categories of armor--none, leather, mail, and plate. And the addition of a shield was interspersed between the four in rank. So with basic you had none, shield, leather, leather & shield, mail, mail & shield, plate, plate & shield corresponding to ACs 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, and 2 respectively. That had to be tweaked when AD&D expanded the number of armor options. But at its core, the AC system was just telling is what's better or worse than what. I don't see evidence of there being a lot of thought given to how much better or worse it should be.
That's my two cents anyway. Carry on, crawler.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.

BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 3313
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #188 on: September 30, 2022, 01:42:37 PM »

"I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request."

Thats true.  Any other publisher I wouldn't keep .pdfs I havent paid for.  WOTC? Screw em.

What I don't like is that I can't seem to find .pdfs legitimately available for 5e.  I have the core rules and a few other books, but .pdfs can be handy.  What would be wrong in having .pdfs of these for my own personal use?  Asking for a friend.
If I had to guess, WotC is trying to prevent piracy. That's the only logical explanation. It doesn't work, as not offering PDFs increases piracy, but corpos have never been particularly good at understanding this.

GhostNinja

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1064
  • I Like big Bots and I cannot Lie.
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #189 on: September 30, 2022, 01:48:06 PM »

What I don't like is that I can't seem to find .pdfs legitimately available for 5e.  I have the core rules and a few other books, but .pdfs can be handy.  What would be wrong in having .pdfs of these for my own personal use?  Asking for a friend.

Yep and what is silly is there are plenty of places to get them non-legally so if they are doing it to prevent piracy its not working.
Ghostninja

GhostNinja

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1064
  • I Like big Bots and I cannot Lie.
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #190 on: September 30, 2022, 01:48:53 PM »

If I had to guess, WotC is trying to prevent piracy. That's the only logical explanation. It doesn't work, as not offering PDFs increases piracy, but corpos have never been particularly good at understanding this.

Seeing some of WOTC's latest decisions regarding games does it surprise you in the lease bit that they dont understand this?
Ghostninja

Effete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #191 on: September 30, 2022, 03:19:21 PM »

If I had to guess, WotC is trying to prevent piracy. That's the only logical explanation. It doesn't work, as not offering PDFs increases piracy, but corpos have never been particularly good at understanding this.

Seeing some of WOTC's latest decisions regarding games does it surprise you in the lease bit that they dont understand this?

First off, I just wanted to say that I thought WotC did offer digital-only purchases. I had never actually been interested in purchasing anything from them in recent years, so this fact eluded me. It's surprising to me that they don't, assuming it's true.

Anyway...

Every company wants to prevent piracy in some way, shape, or form. The proliferency of piracy, however, seems to come down both demand AND value. For example, I don't recall hearing about a huge pirate market around Harry Potter books, despite their undeniable popularity (merchandise is another matter, but that's mostly a result of China being IP thieves as usual).

In my experience, films and gaming books probably have the largest pirate market out there. The things these fields have in common is diminishing returns after the initial purchase. How many times can you watch the same movie before it gets boring? Often times, the purchase has an immediate depreciation. Back in the 3.x heyday, I must have purchased about 50 books, half of which are now sitting in a box on a shelf in my basement. There were books whose content I never even used in any game. Complete waste, right?

Now, don't get me wrong! I'm a staunch capitalist, and I understand the importance of having a consumer market in the economy, but people are also individuals, and they will assess purchases on an individual level. At 25-40 dollars a pop, some gaming books simply do not have that same commercial value to the consumer, even though the product is fairly priced considering production costs and overhead. So people like me, who HAD been loyal customers in the past, get to thinking that the company has already made enough money off them. It's a selfish mindset that I'm not ashamed to admit.

I'm not condoning theft, and I'm certainly not begrudging a company for wanting to make a profit. I'm just saying there are a number of factors involved. Inflation and shitty economy being one of them. So, yeah... not offering a cheaper digital-only copy of an expensive book is going to increase the rate of piracy.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2022, 03:26:58 PM by Effete »

GhostNinja

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1064
  • I Like big Bots and I cannot Lie.
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #192 on: September 30, 2022, 03:45:11 PM »

First off, I just wanted to say that I thought WotC did offer digital-only purchases. I had never actually been interested in purchasing anything from them in recent years, so this fact eluded me. It's surprising to me that they don't, assuming it's true.

Yes I am aware that they do through D&D beyond, however since I try to get computers and other digtal items from my table to prevent people being distracted and the face that they are only a little cheaper than a print book they are worthless to me.

Anyway...

Every company wants to prevent piracy in some way, shape, or form. The proliferency of piracy, however, seems to come down both demand AND value. For example, I don't recall hearing about a huge pirate market around Harry Potter books, despite their undeniable popularity (merchandise is another matter, but that's mostly a result of China being IP thieves as usual).

Back in the 3.x heyday, I must have purchased about 50 books, half of which are now sitting in a box on a shelf in my basement. There were books whose content I never even used in any game.
 Complete waste, right?

You could either mine them for ideas I guess.

]Now, don't get me wrong! I'm a staunch capitalist, and I understand the importance of having a consumer market in the economy, but people are also individuals, and they will assess purchases on an individual level. At 25-40 dollars a pop, some gaming books simply do not have that same commercial value to the consumer, even though the product is fairly priced considering production costs and overhead. So people like me, who HAD been loyal customers in the past, get to thinking that the company has already made enough money off them. It's a selfish mindset that I'm not ashamed to admit.

I'm not condoning theft, and I'm certainly not begrudging a company for wanting to make a profit. I'm just saying there are a number of factors involved. Inflation and shitty economy being one of them. So, yeah... not offering a cheaper digital-only copy of an expensive book is going to increase the rate of piracy.

Yes I am very much a capitalist myself and I do not condone stealing (expecially from game designers who don't make a ton either) and for me its not I condone stealing from WOTC, them I would just turn a blind eye and say nothing (where as with other publishers I would recommend buying their books and advocate against stealing a book.

If that makes sense

I am against stealing rpg books, but I am indifferent when it comes to WOTC
Ghostninja

PulpHerb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • P
  • Posts: 400
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #193 on: September 30, 2022, 04:25:48 PM »
I'm not condoning theft, and I'm certainly not begrudging a company for wanting to make a profit. I'm just saying there are a number of factors involved. Inflation and shitty economy being one of them. So, yeah... not offering a cheaper digital-only copy of an expensive book is going to increase the rate of piracy.

It's also leaving money on the table.

Example from personal experience. About 10 years ago I thought of running a Tribe 8 game. I went to DTRPG to see if it was available on pdf. It was, at over half the retail price of the printed books when it was in production. That was also over the price of used physical books on eBay. I wrote DP9 and their response was "they needed to recoup costs of making the originals". While that is a valid concern, the game had been OOP for a decade give or take. If the costs weren't amortized out by then, it was already a loss baked into the balance sheet. They were starving today's P&L to save the balance sheet from years ago.

They also sold me no books. It was a whim that could have netted them about $40 (core book plus a few supplements/adventures totaling about $50 at a pdf of 50% of retail minus DTRPG's 30% of that or about 35% retail, roughly what they'd get from the distributors without the physical copy costs).

Then a few years back more product then I'd though of buying showed up on Bundle of Holding. I got all of it for around half of what I'd have paid years before.

Game companies on the whole are too small to be leaving money on the table to stop pirates who were never going to buy in the first place.

Effete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #194 on: September 30, 2022, 07:28:49 PM »
It's also leaving money on the table.

Example from personal experience. About 10 years ago I thought of running a Tribe 8 game. I went to DTRPG to see if it was available on pdf. It was, at over half the retail price of the printed books when it was in production. That was also over the price of used physical books on eBay. I wrote DP9 and their response was "they needed to recoup costs of making the originals". While that is a valid concern, the game had been OOP for a decade give or take. If the costs weren't amortized out by then, it was already a loss baked into the balance sheet. They were starving today's P&L to save the balance sheet from years ago.

They also sold me no books. It was a whim that could have netted them about $40 (core book plus a few supplements/adventures totaling about $50 at a pdf of 50% of retail minus DTRPG's 30% of that or about 35% retail, roughly what they'd get from the distributors without the physical copy costs).

Then a few years back more product then I'd though of buying showed up on Bundle of Holding. I got all of it for around half of what I'd have paid years before.

Game companies on the whole are too small to be leaving money on the table to stop pirates who were never going to buy in the first place.

Agreed. PDFs cost next to nothing for a company (since most publishers these days print straight from a pdf file anyway), so offering a digital purchase concurrently with a physical copy is only going to broaden the appeal. Some companies (like Pinnacle) give out a free pdf copy if you buy the physical one. Any purely digital-purchases are likely from those who wouldn't have bought the product otherwise, so that's just extra money in the pocket.

The problem occurs when a company over-estimates the demand for the product, and/or conflates general demand with a demand for a physical product. If 500 people pledge to buy your book, so you print 500 copies, but half of the pledges buy the digital version only, well that's a very costly mistake. One that could have been avoided if you gathered better info on what your customers wanted. In any case, you're immediate instinct as a business owner is to try to recoup your losses before the end of the quarter. This actually seems to be a similar issue that Conner from Coyote & Crow ran into; he apparently didn't evaluate his costs properly, and then had to beg the backers for more money (breaking a promise he made to them and igniting some jokes about being an Indian Giver). I guess the take-away is don't punish the customers for your own poor management.