D&D is now in (exceedingly awesome) commercial form

[Cor_Malek]

You saw it and talked about it. That's already pretty good in marketing.

QFT, as it was posted at 3rd, and the thread already reached 8 pages. Meanwhile, some of the users actively engaged in discussion as pro-ad. And nothing reinforces opinion as restating it. Sure, some in similar way entrenched as anti-Essentials, but all effective strategies repel some customers.

I still can't find source of the track from that video, and I'm more and more sure I've heard it before.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Let's also be clear that there are multiple differences between the original Red Box and it's later iterations, other than the expandable nature of the BECMI series. No other Basic/Starter D&D set since the Mentzer box has 1) been sold in mainstream retail outlets and toystores like Wal-Mart, Target, Sears and Toys'R'Us;

This is not actually true. The '91 Basic Set, at the very least, was still getting pushed into mainstream retail outlets.

and 2) been in release at a time when D&D was already massively popular (i.e. numerous news stories, TV commercials, school gaming clubs, Saturday morning cartoon, etc.). To claim that the expandable nature of the game past the contents of the Basic Box was at the root of the Basic game's success is, IMO, ignoring a large body of evidence to the contrary.

Like I said: You might be right. The fact that during its periods of greatest success D&D had a boxed set that wasn't pay-to-preview might be a total coincidence. And the fact that the game went into decline right around the time they switched to pay-to-preview boxed sets might also be a coincidence.

There is, after all, a distinct lack of breadth in the empirical evidence to separate causation from correlation.

But I'd love it if WotC would give that to us some day. Unfortunately, the Starter Set obviously delays that.

What I find amusing in those links is that, in the first, he says the 4 issues are that:
-There hasn't been a game packaged to look like a game to the average customer;
-There hasn't been a version packaged to sell through mainstream stores;
-The entry cost for the game has been too high;
-The investment time of reading the books is too much.

And he mentions that the solo play adventure is a super awesome thing.

So, along comes the Red Box, which absolutely addresses the first two issues, and has a solo play adventure.... none of which he mentions at all in his follow-up post.

I think you're misreading what he wrote: His first qualification is that a legitimate gateway game that isn't pay-to-preview needs to exist. Since he feels that the Starter Set is a pay-to-preview product, the fact that it's packaged in a box and sold through mainstream stores is irrelevant -- just like it was irrelevant with all the other boxed basic sets sold in the past 20 years (many of which were sold through mainstream stores).

Notably, for example, you're misquoting him. He didn't say "there hasn't been a game packaged to look like a game to the average customer". He said "there hasn't been any legitimate version of the game packaged to look like a game to the average consumer" (emphasis added).

You can't sell what you don't have. And WotC still doesn't have it.

If only WotC put out quick start rules and an entire adventure for free on their website.

Oh, hmm. I guess they did.

I'm not really sure what you think your point is. I think it's a great idea to offer free demos of your product. But that doesn't negate the fact that the Starter Set is a pay-to-preview product.

I know fanboys can have a difficult time holding nuanced opinions. But it is, in fact, possible to say, "WotC made a smart decision over here." While simultaneously believing that they made a poor decision somewhere else.

Anyway, this thread continues to suggest to me that people who already play the current edition feel the red box will bring in new players, sometimes via older players, and people who don't play or like the current edition seem to be saying they aren't interested.

Similarly, I think it's quite possible that pre-existing "edition bias" is factoring into people's opinions here. But, frankly, I was saying the same thing about the 3E Basic Games when they were released. And the '91 Basic Set when it was released. My opinion that pay-to-preview products are not the best way to sell D&D is pretty much edition neutral.

And the fact that the Starter Set isn't doing anything that hasn't been attempted by one of the half dozen or more basic games in the past 20 years isn't even a matter of opinion.

I also believe that there's some legitimately great stuff happening with Essentials. I just wish they had put more of it in the Starter Set.

 

[Ahwe Yahzhe]

About the ad...

...I liked the tightened-up version of the fan film contest winner (I saw the original at the Game Day awards presentation in Hollywood 3 years ago.)

But has anybody confirmed this is an actual WoTC ad? Has anybody actually seen this thing on Hulu, let alone old-fashioned TV?

And has anybody actually seen a Red Box in a Target? I stopped by one yesterday and saw fat shelf space for all kinds of kid's games, board games, and party games. Hasbro is pushing a line of vintage wood case games (Clue, Risk, Stratego) that are prominently displayed, but no sign of a new Red Box. It's also telling that it's not sold through their online channel either, and that of dozens of categories from which you can search for games, "Role-Playing Games" is not listed.

So I think we're all assuming that (1) this cool/lame ad is actual WotC marketing, and (2) that Hasbro cares enough about its niche hobby gaming subsidiary enough to even consider pushing for space on a discount retailer shelf.

 

[Windjammer]

and, God help me, Manowar

Manowar had its moments of glory which can be revisited without pain or embarassment, coincidentally moments not containing metal.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb46TxwEaZw&feature=related]Cue a great story[/ame], followed by one of the greatest hymns of all time.

 

[Mistwell]

No, I'm trying to explain a difference in the products, not the companies. Though maybe that's not a bad idea. How successful have WotC's intro versions of games been? There was Invasion of Theed for Star Wars and previous intro games for D&D. Did any of them make a splash like they probably wanted? I liked Invasion of Theed as an intro product... then found that once I had the full game book, I hardly used it. Since then, my thoughts on intro games have changed. I don't want to pay much money for something that's basically an ad for the full game. I'd pay a small amount for maybe a set of quick start rules to get a taste, then I haven't spent much before buying the main game obsoletes the introductory purchase.

Dragon Age, so far, seems to be what the original Red Box was. A game not meant to merely introduce and get the player to move on and leave it on the shelf, but to continue being played and added to.

I understand what you're saying about people moving from a basic boxed set to the AD&D line. I did the same. But that's to be expected once the player has encountered their gateway product. Other games may attract them away from the first one, particularly when they're so similar. But in the original Red Box's case, there was an alternative path to follow that kept the Red Box itself relevant and not gathering dust on the shelf. In other words, it wasn't just an advertisement for another set of products.

This is not entirely accurate. I'll walk through it again. The original basic set came out in 1977 (Holmes). It had a blue cover (see below). From the Wikipedia page:

The original Basic Set is notable in that it was intended as a bridge between the original D&D and the AD&D rules rather than a simple introductory version of the game. Unusual features of the original basic game include an alignment system of five alignments as opposed to the 3 or 9 alignments of the other versions. This Basic Set was very popular and allowed many to discover and experience the D&D game for the first time. Although this Basic Set is not compatible with AD&D, players were expected to continue play beyond third level by moving to the AD&D version; evidently the radical changes AD&D would make to the rules were not yet appreciated when the original Basic Set was produced.

It looked like this:

It was not until 1981, when Tom Moldvay revised the Basic set, that it was even conceived of as entirely its own game, instead of as a bridge to AD&D. There was no Expert set, and there was nothing else to expand into other than AD&D (which of course repeated those three levels entirely).

I see no material difference between this new Red Box and the original Basic set. Both are bridges to another, fuller game, which replaced or repeated all those rules. You call it an ad for the other game, but I don't. I call it a full game that only went to a lower number of experience levels than other games.

Second, the new red box contains 6 polyhedral dice, a double-sided map, 2 sheets of die-cut tokens, cardstock character sheets, power cards, and lot of cool pictures, and some interesting story content. None of that is superseded by a follow-on book. It's only $20 from Amazon, which isn't such a bad price for those game accessories. It only sits on your shelf collecting dust if you never use those accessories, but I don't think it's fair to assume nobody will use them again.

Third, it's a complete game. You can play it over and over, through first level, using just that box. Much like you can play Settlers of Catan over and over again, using just that game box, without all the expansions or replacement games that followed in that line of games.

 

[Beginning of the End]

But in the original Red Box's case, there was an alternative path to follow that kept the Red Box itself relevant and not gathering dust on the shelf. In other words, it wasn't just an advertisement for another set of products.

This is not entirely accurate. I'll walk through it again. The original basic set came out in 1977 (Holmes). It had a blue cover (see below).

I've never heard the '77 Holmes edition referred to as the "red box". (Probably because, as you note, it wasn't red.) Acaeum refers to the '83 set as the first "red box", which is certainly what I've always heard.

I've occasionally heard the '81 Moldvay set referred to as "red box", which is somewhat more supportable but appears to be a relatively non-standard usage of the term. But by that point the Basic -> Expert expansion methodology was already in place.

Also, good luck convincing people that D&D is meant to be played as 1st level over and over and over again as the standard experience of the game.

 

[Obryn]

I think you folks are hilariously mistaken if you believe the target audience of this ad - the guys who haven't played D&D for 30 years and who either want to kill orcs or get their kids to kill orcs - will take a side in your edition war.

-O

 

[fanboy2000]

I know fanboys can have a difficult time holding nuanced opinions.

Seriously, you're going to cast Summon Fanboy I? Fine with me, but the DM's a real bastard about that spell.

You: I cast Summon Fanboy I.

DM: O.k. a polar bear appears less than five feet away from you...

You: A polar bear?

DM: Yes. The polar bear says...

You: Wait, a talking polar bear?

DM: Yes. A talking polar bear.

You look-up the spell description to see if this is in line with the spell's effects. It says "Summons a fanboy who humorously comments on the action you decry as 'fanboyism.' May take any shape. And may try to dispel myths about fanboys." The spell only requires a verbal component.

DM: The talking bear says "I'm often critical of decisions made by Wizards, but quite happy with others. They're just not always the same decisions people complain about on the boards."

 

[TarionzCousin]

I think everyone needs to sit down, have a calming cup of whatever calms you, and rethink their definition of "exceedingly awesome."

What if my calming drink is this:

*snortchortlesnort*

Whatever this ad may or may not do, shouting rebellion isn't one of them.

Are you [-]saying[/-] snorting that heavy metal isn't rebellious? Seriously?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Beginning of the End, could you stop referring to yourself in the second person? It's kinda weird, considering the blog you keep trying to pimp out with "his opinion is so right" is your own blog.