They fell short of their projected profits and more then likely were told by board members to start making more money fast. So they dusted off a few not fully worked out ideas and published them as fast as possible just to gin up a few more sales.
But also, the board members are beholden to their shareholders above all else.
I mean theoretically. In practice a lot of boards are very self serving and will sacrifice long term growth and company health for short term, personal gains. See: the state of the average CEO anymore.
If one bothered to read the quarterly financial reports, one might see that the originating post on this thread was simply wrong. Revenues are down for Wizards in 2023 thus far--but that does not mean they "fell short of projected profits". Revenues are down for known reasons--Dark Alliance and the mobile version of Magic Arena both dropped last year leading to disproportionately high revenues in 2021 (even if Dark Alliance was a critical flop). Dungeons & Dragons revenues are up; Magic the Gathering is the same compared to 2021--but expected to have increased revenues by the end of the year, with Q3 having a lower number of Magic releases than 2021 as those releases were slid back and concentrated in Q4 2022.
Profits are down, but also for expected reasons that lowered the "projected profits"--those profits are down for inflation (a known factor), supply chain (which is hitting the printing industry hard), the multi-million dollar acquisition of D&D Beyond, licensing royalties for Magic's Universes Beyond program (another known in advance factor), and the fact that Wizards has been growing in size, meaning more hires (including growing their brand new video game studio, where they hired a bunch of former BioWare developers and are working on a Mass Effect like game--meaning they are sinking lots of money into development for a project that is not generating any profit and will not for years).
All of that is pretty standard in the industry, especially given the modern state of production. And it certainly is no cause for Hasbro's Board of Directors and CEO (who, I might add, is a former Wizards executive) to start messing with release timetables set as far out as years in advance.
Now, there are plenty of things Hasbro should be blamed for--mostly over on the Magic: the Gathering side of Wizards--but typos and other errors in a book where the release schedule was dictated far in advance of 2022's particular inflation difficulties? That looks a lot like trying to see a conspiracy in good old fashioned (and, as said before on this thread) well-established human error.
(Also, just to address the last post in this thread--Boards of Directors are not just "theoretically" beholden to shareholders--they are required by law to protect their shareholders. If shareholders feel that the Board is not satisfying their legal obligations, they are able to sue the Board to force the Board to change their direction.)
--------------------------
On a note related to my above, as mentioned release schedules are often planned out months and years in advance. D&D is not quite as open about their release timelines and behind the scenes production as Mark Rosewater at the Magic: the Gathering side of Wizards, but what we know about Magic likely has some correlation with how D&D operates.
Right now, Magic is releasing a number of products with typos and other silly errors--and, like with D&D, folks are blaming Hasbro and the shareholders for those errors. Rosewater has indicated the recent spat of errors had a much more mundane explanation--right now, we are seeing product that was designed during the lockdowns of 2020 and the period of widespread working remotely at Wizards over the course of 2021. That adjustment period in 2020/pre-vaccines 2021, combined with things getting lost in the shuffle when everything had to be done by Zoom and email, has resulted in a quality control drop with Magic. I would not be surprised if D&D is seeing the same thing and we are now seeing the rollout of products containing pandemic era-oopsies, just like over in Magic.
Considering how bad Spelljammer was, I would have expected much tighter editing for this one.
Wouldn't Dragonlance have already been sent to the printers by the time Spelljammer was released?
This whole discussion reminds me of a recent tweet wondering why the magazines at the local news stand were engaged in a conspiracy of silence and not featuring cover stories about Elon Musk's chaotic first couple weeks in charge of Twitter
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
They fell short of their projected profits and more then likely were told by board members to start making more money fast. So they dusted off a few not fully worked out ideas and published them as fast as possible just to gin up a few more sales.
But also, the board members are beholden to their shareholders above all else.
You have to be a huge share holder to get on the board in the first place, so saying they have to do good by the shareholders is just saying they have to do good for themselves. You owning a few hundred shares means nothing to them when the total amount is in the millions of shares.
Considering how bad Spelljammer was, I would have expected much tighter editing for this one.
Wouldn't Dragonlance have already been sent to the printers by the time Spelljammer was released?
This whole discussion reminds me of a recent tweet wondering why the magazines at the local news stand were engaged in a conspiracy of silence and not featuring cover stories about Elon Musk's chaotic first couple weeks in charge of Twitter
I saw that tweet! To be fair, Newsweek and Time were in the mix, and I'm sure there were think pieces in those issues aware of the early problems, but otherwise yeah calling out Better Homes and Gardens, Women's Fitness and the Stranger Things annual was definitely a way for someone to tell Twitter than know nothing about monthly (or annual) magazine publishing without saying they know nothing about monthly (or annual) magazine publishing.
But yeah I'm a bit at a loss for words at the resistance to understand how words are actually professionally produced.
That said, Typosofthenewyorktimes is like one of my favorite follows.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
When I read the title of this thread I expected something else, such as friends on mine saying 1DD now is the same as 1-2 years ago and it looks like they did not take any of our advice then as it seems the exact same rules are in it this time. Or it seems like WoTC just copied old text and tried to plug in 5e's "simplicity rules mantra" with people like to home brew so we will just leave a lot of stuff vague (vs people home brewing things that do not fit their game and expecting everything else to be fleshed out).
Spelling errors and old version to new version errors are vastly different and IMHO the later of the two are the bigger of the two issues. Lots of things could have happened to produce either of the two error types and I hope the appropriate people are placing standards in place so it does not happen in the future, or vastly reduced in the future.
This is weirdly blown out of proportion. Ya'll are like "why didn't they proofread this?" as if a slapped-together draft wouldn't have 5 pages of errata. As someone who regularly reads and evaluates a lot of other people's code, I sympathize with the authors/proofreaders here. If this is all there is, that means they caught 98% of the errors and that's pretty darn good.
If you want to level criticism at the "direction of D&D" or the "current quality of released products," there are certainly understandable arguments to make. But a bit of prompt errata is not one of them.
This is weirdly blown out of proportion. Ya'll are like "why didn't they proofread this?" as if a slapped-together draft wouldn't have 5 pages of errata. As someone who regularly reads and evaluates a lot of other people's code, I sympathize with the authors/proofreaders here. If this is all there is, that means they caught 98% of the errors and that's pretty darn good.
If you want to level criticism at the "direction of D&D" or the "current quality of released products," there are certainly understandable arguments to make. But a bit of prompt errata is not one of them.
I agree errata does happen and at times the quantity of errata can fluxuate the same goes for quality of products and if you look through a lens of "how useful this is to me?" vs "how useful is it to different groups of gamers?"
Writing games is hard work especially doing it repeatedly day in day out but also when trends keep pop'ing up it seems to be a feature and not a flaw. That in my opinion is what should not happen.
Edit:
I also understand there are often lots of eyes on a product and thoughts about product direction and they can change in the middle of a project with makes a lot of peoples job harder. As well as if a company has a history of products they can have a huge resource to pull from.
Writing games is hard work especially doing it repeatedly day in day out but also when trends keep pop'ing up it seems to be a feature and not a flaw.
The only thing errata indicates is that the publisher isn't abandoning the book after publication. Every book has errors in it. If there's a meaningful pattern here, it's probably that Wizards got burned by the Hadozee fiasco and decided to do an additional review just in case the same sort of problems had crept into Dragonlance. I'm not sure exactly where in the print process this book was when that blew up, but it wouldn't surprise me if it had already been finalized.
(Also, just to address the last post in this thread--Boards of Directors are not just "theoretically" beholden to shareholders--they are required by law to protect their shareholders. If shareholders feel that the Board is not satisfying their legal obligations, they are able to sue the Board to force the Board to change their direction.)
That's the theoretical part. There is a legal remedy and check against abusive board actions and general misconduct, but actually organizing legal action and then proving malfeasance is very difficult and almost never happens, especially in regards to larger companies.
“Sizable” is a very debatable term. This book is 10’s of thousands, possibly 100’s of thousands of words. They made a few errors. It’s far from sizable. The title of the post includes “troubling signs of the future” not literally the world is ending, but certainly dramatic. I mean, the PHB in 2014 had mistakes in it, too. I guess that was a bad sign, and yet here we all are, still playing.
Yes, they probably have multiple editors. These things still happen. I’ve worked in newspapers. Even the smallest papers had at least two editors read every story. Some would have two or more editors and a proofreader. Some larger stories would involve multiple editing passes from each of those people, and the reporter. Mistakes still happen. We hate it every single time. People get fired for it. Some papers track reporters correction rates, so you know you’re personally, tangibly screwed if you make too many. But even then they still happen.
I would say that 6 changes is a pretty sizable amount. But we may be using slightly different definitions of the words. Anyways, it is not just the amount of errors that concern me, it is the fact that the very first version of this book (the physical + digital bundle) was released to a small amount of fans, and immediately, those fans noticed and reported the glaring errors despite the fact that several were hundreds of pages into the book.
So these errors were easily caught by fans who just skimmed through the book. I know there are more fans than editors, but if the not too massive group of fans who bought the bundle could find so many errors so quickly, then I just don't see how the editors let some of these errors get to print in the first place.
So yeah, people make mistakes. But these mistakes seem to be glaring and easily avoidable.
I do find it a bit funny that people are arguing that Dragonlance can have large amounts of errors because the first edition of the game (which was published nearly 50 years ago by a couple of random dudes) had errors too.
Where are the people arguing that?
You literally just linked an article about an error from 1984 in the first edition of the game in the post directly above mine.
***
You guys have eased most of my concerns on this matter, and I thank you for that. Anyways, I do still remain a bit worried.
I do find it a bit funny that people are arguing that Dragonlance can have large amounts of errors because the first edition of the game (which was published nearly 50 years ago by a couple of random dudes) had errors too.
Where are the people arguing that?
You literally just linked an article about an error from 1984 in the first edition of the game in the post directly above mine.
***
You guys have eased most of my concerns on this matter, and I thank you for that. Anyways, I do still remain a bit worried.
The point of that link was to counter the claim that somehow in the pre-internet age, books were published without typos or misprints.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I do find it a bit funny that people are arguing that Dragonlance can have large amounts of errors because the first edition of the game (which was published nearly 50 years ago by a couple of random dudes) had errors too.
Where are the people arguing that?
You literally just linked an article about an error from 1984 in the first edition of the game in the post directly above mine.
***
You guys have eased most of my concerns on this matter, and I thank you for that. Anyways, I do still remain a bit worried.
The point of that link was to counter the claim that somehow in the pre-internet age, books were published without typos or misprints.
Honestly my point was just it’s a funny story and these things are not a big deal (especially errata as short as this Dragonlance one). Didn’t realize they were referring to me since I’m a person not a people and that book was from 20 years after it was just a “couple of random dudes.” In fact, when that silly error happened, TSR likely had more full time employees working on the RPG books than WotC does now!
I would say that 6 changes is a pretty sizable amount. But we may be using slightly different definitions of the words. Anyways, it is not just the amount of errors that concern me, it is the fact that the very first version of this book (the physical + digital bundle) was released to a small amount of fans, and immediately, those fans noticed and reported the glaring errors despite the fact that several were hundreds of pages into the book.
Zero-day errata aren't things found by customers, they're things found by internal QA after the document was finalized.
It’s really poor form, they are charging a premium for a pound store product. What’s worse is they know it and don’t care. Previous releases have sold massively, and the explosion of new and returning players has left them feeling invincible. The only way it will change is if people stop being apologists and start voting with their wallets. Boycott their product, sales will plummet, stock market value will tank and they will immediately up their product quality
Oh no, they said "Will save"!
This is genuinely hilarious. So much so that I'm going to change my DDB signature, brb
But we aren't looking at errors in grammar or spelling here. There is a big difference between Evocation and Enchantment or Divination and Illusion. Changing those schools has a significant impact on game play.
And as a forever DM for 42 years I still have trouble understanding the difference when I running the game.
But we aren't looking at errors in grammar or spelling here. There is a big difference between Evocation and Enchantment or Divination and Illusion. Changing those schools has a significant impact on game play.
And as a forever DM for 42 years I still have trouble understanding the difference when I running the game.
Not much, unless you have abilities that relate to those tags, like the Evocation Wizard being able to use Sculpt Spell. Then they can matter a lot, and since that text is talking about what spells you can apply an ability of the Lunar Sorceror to, it's actually a pretty crucial difference.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Writing games is hard work especially doing it repeatedly day in day out but also when trends keep pop'ing up it seems to be a feature and not a flaw.
The only thing errata indicates is that the publisher isn't abandoning the book after publication. Every book has errors in it. If there's a meaningful pattern here, it's probably that Wizards got burned by the Hadozee fiasco and decided to do an additional review just in case the same sort of problems had crept into Dragonlance. I'm not sure exactly where in the print process this book was when that blew up, but it wouldn't surprise me if it had already been finalized.
IMHO it depends on the type of errata, rules from previous editions should be easy to find and remove, spelling/grammar mistakes as another matter, one I would expect. Were as previous edition rules to me is a huge problem.
IMHO it depends on the type of errata, rules from previous editions should be easy to find and remove, spelling/grammar mistakes as another matter, one I would expect. Were as previous edition rules to me is a huge problem.
Dragonlance is primarily a setting book, not a rule book, and given the long history of Dragonlance in D&D, it's likely that some parts of the text were cribbed from some sort of (possibly unpublished) 3.x sourcebook, with a pass to make sure the mechanics lined up, and something got missed.
IMHO it depends on the type of errata, rules from previous editions should be easy to find and remove, spelling/grammar mistakes as another matter, one I would expect. Were as previous edition rules to me is a huge problem.
Dragonlance is primarily a setting book, not a rule book, and given the long history of Dragonlance in D&D, it's likely that some parts of the text were cribbed from some sort of (possibly unpublished) 3.x sourcebook, with a pass to make sure the mechanics lined up, and something got missed.
Minor quibble, but Dragonlance is primarily an adventure book, not a setting book. It's no more a setting book for Dragonlance/Krynn than Tomb of Annihilation is a setting book for the Forgotten Realms/Toril.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
If one bothered to read the quarterly financial reports, one might see that the originating post on this thread was simply wrong. Revenues are down for Wizards in 2023 thus far--but that does not mean they "fell short of projected profits". Revenues are down for known reasons--Dark Alliance and the mobile version of Magic Arena both dropped last year leading to disproportionately high revenues in 2021 (even if Dark Alliance was a critical flop). Dungeons & Dragons revenues are up; Magic the Gathering is the same compared to 2021--but expected to have increased revenues by the end of the year, with Q3 having a lower number of Magic releases than 2021 as those releases were slid back and concentrated in Q4 2022.
Profits are down, but also for expected reasons that lowered the "projected profits"--those profits are down for inflation (a known factor), supply chain (which is hitting the printing industry hard), the multi-million dollar acquisition of D&D Beyond, licensing royalties for Magic's Universes Beyond program (another known in advance factor), and the fact that Wizards has been growing in size, meaning more hires (including growing their brand new video game studio, where they hired a bunch of former BioWare developers and are working on a Mass Effect like game--meaning they are sinking lots of money into development for a project that is not generating any profit and will not for years).
All of that is pretty standard in the industry, especially given the modern state of production. And it certainly is no cause for Hasbro's Board of Directors and CEO (who, I might add, is a former Wizards executive) to start messing with release timetables set as far out as years in advance.
Now, there are plenty of things Hasbro should be blamed for--mostly over on the Magic: the Gathering side of Wizards--but typos and other errors in a book where the release schedule was dictated far in advance of 2022's particular inflation difficulties? That looks a lot like trying to see a conspiracy in good old fashioned (and, as said before on this thread) well-established human error.
(Also, just to address the last post in this thread--Boards of Directors are not just "theoretically" beholden to shareholders--they are required by law to protect their shareholders. If shareholders feel that the Board is not satisfying their legal obligations, they are able to sue the Board to force the Board to change their direction.)
--------------------------
On a note related to my above, as mentioned release schedules are often planned out months and years in advance. D&D is not quite as open about their release timelines and behind the scenes production as Mark Rosewater at the Magic: the Gathering side of Wizards, but what we know about Magic likely has some correlation with how D&D operates.
Right now, Magic is releasing a number of products with typos and other silly errors--and, like with D&D, folks are blaming Hasbro and the shareholders for those errors. Rosewater has indicated the recent spat of errors had a much more mundane explanation--right now, we are seeing product that was designed during the lockdowns of 2020 and the period of widespread working remotely at Wizards over the course of 2021. That adjustment period in 2020/pre-vaccines 2021, combined with things getting lost in the shuffle when everything had to be done by Zoom and email, has resulted in a quality control drop with Magic. I would not be surprised if D&D is seeing the same thing and we are now seeing the rollout of products containing pandemic era-oopsies, just like over in Magic.
Wouldn't Dragonlance have already been sent to the printers by the time Spelljammer was released?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
This whole discussion reminds me of a recent tweet wondering why the magazines at the local news stand were engaged in a conspiracy of silence and not featuring cover stories about Elon Musk's chaotic first couple weeks in charge of Twitter
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You have to be a huge share holder to get on the board in the first place, so saying they have to do good by the shareholders is just saying they have to do good for themselves.
You owning a few hundred shares means nothing to them when the total amount is in the millions of shares.
I saw that tweet! To be fair, Newsweek and Time were in the mix, and I'm sure there were think pieces in those issues aware of the early problems, but otherwise yeah calling out Better Homes and Gardens, Women's Fitness and the Stranger Things annual was definitely a way for someone to tell Twitter than know nothing about monthly (or annual) magazine publishing without saying they know nothing about monthly (or annual) magazine publishing.
But yeah I'm a bit at a loss for words at the resistance to understand how words are actually professionally produced.
That said, Typosofthenewyorktimes is like one of my favorite follows.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
When I read the title of this thread I expected something else, such as friends on mine saying 1DD now is the same as 1-2 years ago and it looks like they did not take any of our advice then as it seems the exact same rules are in it this time. Or it seems like WoTC just copied old text and tried to plug in 5e's "simplicity rules mantra" with people like to home brew so we will just leave a lot of stuff vague (vs people home brewing things that do not fit their game and expecting everything else to be fleshed out).
Spelling errors and old version to new version errors are vastly different and IMHO the later of the two are the bigger of the two issues. Lots of things could have happened to produce either of the two error types and I hope the appropriate people are placing standards in place so it does not happen in the future, or vastly reduced in the future.
This is weirdly blown out of proportion. Ya'll are like "why didn't they proofread this?" as if a slapped-together draft wouldn't have 5 pages of errata. As someone who regularly reads and evaluates a lot of other people's code, I sympathize with the authors/proofreaders here. If this is all there is, that means they caught 98% of the errors and that's pretty darn good.
If you want to level criticism at the "direction of D&D" or the "current quality of released products," there are certainly understandable arguments to make. But a bit of prompt errata is not one of them.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I agree errata does happen and at times the quantity of errata can fluxuate the same goes for quality of products and if you look through a lens of "how useful this is to me?" vs "how useful is it to different groups of gamers?"
Writing games is hard work especially doing it repeatedly day in day out but also when trends keep pop'ing up it seems to be a feature and not a flaw. That in my opinion is what should not happen.
Edit:
I also understand there are often lots of eyes on a product and thoughts about product direction and they can change in the middle of a project with makes a lot of peoples job harder. As well as if a company has a history of products they can have a huge resource to pull from.
The only thing errata indicates is that the publisher isn't abandoning the book after publication. Every book has errors in it. If there's a meaningful pattern here, it's probably that Wizards got burned by the Hadozee fiasco and decided to do an additional review just in case the same sort of problems had crept into Dragonlance. I'm not sure exactly where in the print process this book was when that blew up, but it wouldn't surprise me if it had already been finalized.
That's the theoretical part. There is a legal remedy and check against abusive board actions and general misconduct, but actually organizing legal action and then proving malfeasance is very difficult and almost never happens, especially in regards to larger companies.
Things happened, so I'm sorry it took me a while to write this reply. But there are posts I need to reply to, so...
I would say that 6 changes is a pretty sizable amount. But we may be using slightly different definitions of the words. Anyways, it is not just the amount of errors that concern me, it is the fact that the very first version of this book (the physical + digital bundle) was released to a small amount of fans, and immediately, those fans noticed and reported the glaring errors despite the fact that several were hundreds of pages into the book.
So these errors were easily caught by fans who just skimmed through the book. I know there are more fans than editors, but if the not too massive group of fans who bought the bundle could find so many errors so quickly, then I just don't see how the editors let some of these errors get to print in the first place.
So yeah, people make mistakes. But these mistakes seem to be glaring and easily avoidable.
You literally just linked an article about an error from 1984 in the first edition of the game in the post directly above mine.
***
You guys have eased most of my concerns on this matter, and I thank you for that. Anyways, I do still remain a bit worried.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.The point of that link was to counter the claim that somehow in the pre-internet age, books were published without typos or misprints.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Honestly my point was just it’s a funny story and these things are not a big deal (especially errata as short as this Dragonlance one). Didn’t realize they were referring to me since I’m a person not a people and that book was from 20 years after it was just a “couple of random dudes.” In fact, when that silly error happened, TSR likely had more full time employees working on the RPG books than WotC does now!
Zero-day errata aren't things found by customers, they're things found by internal QA after the document was finalized.
Oh no, they said "Will save"!
This is genuinely hilarious. So much so that I'm going to change my DDB signature, brb
[REDACTED]
And as a forever DM for 42 years I still have trouble understanding the difference when I running the game.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
Not much, unless you have abilities that relate to those tags, like the Evocation Wizard being able to use Sculpt Spell. Then they can matter a lot, and since that text is talking about what spells you can apply an ability of the Lunar Sorceror to, it's actually a pretty crucial difference.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
IMHO it depends on the type of errata, rules from previous editions should be easy to find and remove, spelling/grammar mistakes as another matter, one I would expect. Were as previous edition rules to me is a huge problem.
Dragonlance is primarily a setting book, not a rule book, and given the long history of Dragonlance in D&D, it's likely that some parts of the text were cribbed from some sort of (possibly unpublished) 3.x sourcebook, with a pass to make sure the mechanics lined up, and something got missed.
Minor quibble, but Dragonlance is primarily an adventure book, not a setting book. It's no more a setting book for Dragonlance/Krynn than Tomb of Annihilation is a setting book for the Forgotten Realms/Toril.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms