On the marketing of 4E

[MrMyth]

So that's months and months ahead or extensive playtest material eh? Uh... no. It's not. It's a thinly, very thinly disguised ad.

Man, there is no satisfying some folks.

Since 4E started, WotC has had several weeks worth of free previews in the month leading up to every product release. Continuing from previous years, each month, at the start of the month, we have the free preview column from Bart Carroll, which includes a list of releases over the next 3 months and at least one excerpt from each.

Within the magazine itself, subscribers get access to the significant advance previews from the PHB3 (and presumably future material once that releases), along with playtest articles that allow them direct feedback into the development of the game. In addition, in Ampersand, Bill Slavicsek often includes snippets of upcoming material, intended entirely as bonus info for subscribers. And, yes, he mentions whatever releases are coming out that month, and even with his potentially overwhelming enthusiasm, is a paragraph or two really causing any problems?

As a subscriber, I appreciate this information. I'm not sure what you would expect from an editorial style column, but if he removed those previews, we wouldn't be receiving anything in their place. We aren't losing out on anything by them being there. And non-subscribers aren't getting screwed over because they still have an enormous amount of preview information being sent their way every month!

If you view the previews WotC releases as a failure of marketing opportunity, it is simply because you are looking for ways to criticize them, rather than taking an unbiased view of the situation.

And honestly, that's a lot of the issue at hand. The problem with 4E 'marketing' is that we had a lot of game designers - who aren't marketing people - who were stepping forward and earnestly discussing the game and the design decisions they made. They weren't skilled at coaching this in perfectly designed inoffensive marketing language, and their enthusiasm - and honesty about what they perceived as flaws - rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. And while it could definitely have been handled better, I think it unfortunate that there was such backlash over that level of openness and communication, and that so many people began looking for ways to be offended.

Honestly, when someone says they are boycotting 4E because of the Gnome and Tiefling cartoon - one of the funniest things out there, something clearly designed with not the slightest hostility or intended insult, and something responsible for making the gnome more popular than it has ever been... I don't know how to respond. There are things WotC said that were genuinely ill-phrased or poorly thought out - that wasn't one of them, and the capability of fans to perceive it as an insult only serves as proof that there is not a single action WotC can take that won't end up offending someone.

Which isn't even inherently anyone's fault - people are different, and you simply can't satisfy everyone. But even in light of that, I think there are some who do seem to intentionally view things in the darkest light possible, and seek to call forth criticism in areas where it is no way deserved.

Like Joe Kushner's claim that WotC should cut off all communication with fans about upcoming products. That's a terrible idea. Yes, they said they were hoping to do a boxed set for Revenge of the Giants, and it ended up not being cost-effective to do so. That means they have committed some terrible wrong? I mean, one of the reasons they may have made that decision was based on the response received by fans - something they wouldn't even have access to without discussing this material in advance!

Joe is essentially advocating they never share any information with the community, never discuss what options they are looking at or try to get any customer feedback at all.

For myself, I'd much rather have the occasional disappointment when their plans change, and in return actually get all this preview information, actually have Wotc willing to openly communicate with their customers, actually have them make business decisions based on what is best for the game rather than over fear of disappointing a fan on the internet.

 

[Soraios]

My initial impression of the marketing was that it suffered from horrible timing.

Once they announced the edition switch, there was a 6-9 month lag time until release. During that time, they were essentially clearing out their production calendar of 3.5 stuff. I would bet that D&D product line sales plummeted during that timeframe. Hence the need for the teaser/fluff books that preceded the PHB.

The smarter move would have been to continue to publish 3.5 stuff right until the release of 4e, and then offer free .pdf conversion guides for everything released in the past 6-12 months. And then release a game that was as backwards-compatible as possible with complete conversion guides.

That would have been a smoother transition. Instead, we were offered 4e as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.

 

[Fifth Element]

However, that doesn't mean it cannot have a place in your game. A DM who understands how a rust monster works, or who builds his story to account for it, can have a lot of fun with the critter as written. If the PCs lose their weapons and armor, they might go into debt to a shady merchant to get replacements. That merchant can then play an important, interesting role in the campaign."

It does not look to me as if this article is saying that anyone's play style is "unfun" or that they are "not playing the game correctly". Instead, both the fun and not-so-fun aspects of losing gear are pointed out. The article even makes the same point you did, which is that adapting to having your gear destroyed can indeed be fun if handled correctly by a good DM.

Rather than demonstrating that the designers were criticising anyone's gaming style, I think that providing that particular quote as an example more accurately demonstrates how easy it is to take a quote out of context and then get upset about it for reasons that don't really stand up to closer scrutiny.

Very well said. That is one problem with proving the instulting comments - many comments could be interpreted that way if taken out of context. As you demonstrate here, this "insulting" comment was taken out of context, and the full passage shows a well-balanced commentary.

 

[billd91]

It seems just a little unfair to take half of that fairly balanced presentation of the pros and cons and use it as a demonstration of the author's bias...

To add a little more color and context to this issue, particularly James's comment, all you need to do is look here at ENWorld. I've seen quite a few debates about D&D in which people argue that D&D is about killing things and taking their stuff. It's a pretty common meme around here, and it's often used dismissively. And it's at least partially echoed in James's comment. That's one reason, for me at least, that it stands out much farther than the rest of his commentary.
If you want to say that chatting with creatures from the faerie realm isn't a focus of current design, say that. But don't tell me what D&D is about. DMs and players have always had tremendous leeway in what their games are about, they and take pride in that, so don't try to box it in, even rhetorically. It just comes across as dismissive, maybe even insulting, to players and DMs who don't want to just kill things and take their stuff.

 

[Mallus]

It just comes across as dismissive, maybe even insulting, to players and DMs who don't want to just kill things and take their stuff.

As someone who's run his share of sessions with absolutely no combat, or even dice-rolling, for that matter, who provides all manner of oddball 'little people' for the players to interact with, including parody poetry spouting demons and immortal socialite/semi-Cenobite philosopher/art critics --Would You Like to Know More? The Lady Eve, begin w/post 199-- whose adventures, such as they are, usually stray fairly far afield from the mere 'killing things and taking their stuff, I didn't feel insulted in the slightest.

Then again, I can take a joke. I also try to take only personal things personally.

 

[Hussar]

I find it bizarre that anyone would argue that D&D isn't focused on killing stuff and taking their loot. At least from an official products point of view. Look at pretty much every module produced for every single edition.

While there are exceptions, they are just that... exceptions. The overwhelming majority of modules out there can be boiled down to "Go to this place, kill most or all of every creature you find there, take everything that isn't nailed down." Wash, rinse, repeat.

How much evidence do you need? Twenty ish years of Dungeon magazine, hundreds of stand-alone modules, all doing pretty much the same thing of kill, loot, steal.

Trying to argue that the focus of D&D isn't combat is pretty difficult I would think. The rules are almost entirely focused on combat, the classes are focused on how they kill things, every monster comes with a treasure type. And that hasn't changed in any edition.

Do you HAVE to play that way? Nope. You certainly don't. Is it fair to say that D&D is a combat oriented role playing game where you are going to slay monsters and steal their loot? I'd have to say yes.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I find it bizarre that anyone would argue that D&D isn't focused on killing stuff and taking their loot.

Uhh, ditto. Big time.

But I think perhaps the perception is that the ability and the encouragement to transcend that core gameplay was better supported in prior editions.

You will get no argument from me that 4e has distilled the essence of that core gameplay and does it better than any edition before. It's a better tool for that purpose; it's a less useful tool for other purposes.

In my admittedly ignorant opinion.

 

[avin]

4E marketing seemed bad all the way.
Why mockering things a large parcel of fanbase like? Why trash 3E? Why trash the Great Wheel instead of saying "we'd like to make things a bit different this time"?

In my humble opinion looks like Mearls & company create a game they wanted, paying no much attention to what other people do. It's not that X element from 3E isn't fun, X element from 3E isn't fun for them and they get rid of it to build a game THEY want to play... =/

Seeing their example of "roleplaying" on DMG Skill Challenge examples, with DM and Players mixing meta elements with in game stuff I think it's not the same way me and lots of D&D players do.

It does not prevent me of like 4E, but I don't see Wotc as a cool house like in 3E era anymore.

Things could have been a LOT different on editions wars if 3.5 was treated with all due respect.

 

[frankthedm]

The movie did fine, to be sure, but it got a LOT of negative press. (Ultimately, it was probably a wash, but its hard to be sure.)

Hey if they can get a gorehound like me to watch a bible movie, they got to be doing something right.

And it did more than fine. It kicked the **** out of ALL other R rated movies. Ever.

Domestic: $370,782,930
+ Foreign: $241,116,490
= Worldwide: $611,899,420

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic/mpaa.htm?page=R&p=.htm

1 The Passion of the Christ NM $370,782,930 2004
2 The Matrix Reloaded WB $281,576,461 2003
3 The Hangover WB $272,177,000 2009
4 Beverly Hills Cop Par. $234,760,478 1984
5 The Exorcist WB $232,671,011 1973^
6 Saving Private Ryan DW $216,540,909 1998
7 300 WB $210,614,939 2007
8 Wedding Crashers NL $209,255,921 2005
9 Terminator 2: Judgment Day TriS $204,843,345 1991
10 Gladiator DW $187,705,427 2000

 

[Hussar]

Uhh, ditto. Big time.

But I think perhaps the perception is that the ability and the encouragement to transcend that core gameplay was better supported in prior editions.

You will get no argument from me that 4e has distilled the essence of that core gameplay and does it better than any edition before. It's a better tool for that purpose; it's a less useful tool for other purposes.

In my admittedly ignorant opinion.

Y'know, I have no problem with that assessment at all. I can get behind that one.

4E marketing seemed bad all the way.
Why mockering things a large parcel of fanbase like? Why trash 3E? Why trash the Great Wheel instead of saying "we'd like to make things a bit different this time"?/snip

Again, this gets to the heart of the issue. It's been shown a couple of times that the "trashing" gets taken out of context sometimes and blown out of proportion.

I mean, is making fun of Planescape names really "trashing" the system?