When did I stop being WotC's target audience?

4 years? No, that's unreasonable. But then, like I already said, I see 3.5 as a refinement, not a new edition.

If so much of 3E wasn't duplicated in 3.5, I would agree, but since I view so many of the 3.5 products as essentially a 2nd printing of the 3.0 books, it's like the edition started over at 3.5 (to me). Hence, the 4.5 years.

What I am saying though is I do understand why 1e enjoyed a long period of new innovations, and how the fact many of those same innovations will be available out of the gate for later edition.

I can buy that.

Yes, Paizo is smaller than WotC would be the point I would have offered there. And in a way, I guess they way things turned out is the perhaps the best possible thing that could have happened: a third party that is "sized right" to handle the portion of the market that liked the fundamental informing characteristics of 3e.

As for sustaining profitability... that goal is not a friend to you and I Dave. Yeah, everyone wants to have books on shelves that they want, and have groups playing what they want. But this also gets us marketing-informed decisions like "parsing out the core" and "WoW fans will dig dragonborn."

No argument here.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Those are not, in any way, shape, or form, the PHB.

And for that matter, I understand why there still aren't orcs, goblins, and trolls in the PHB.

I'm not sure why WOTC shouldn't respond to the wishes of its paying customer-base.

Personally, I couldn't understand the fascination with half-dragons etc, but there HAS to be SOMEONE buying all those products.

Seriously, 3e produced

Dragon magic
Races of the Dragon
Dragons of Eberron
Dragons of Faerun
Draconomicon

and this doesn't even include side products like the PHBII which had the Dragon shaman

Seriously, SOMEONE has to be buying all these dragon-themed products. WOTC isn't in the business to just print books that they want. IF you were a designer and you KNOW your audience loves dragontheme products, why wouldn't you include something for them?

(Again, I'll point out thatI I personally don't understand the dragon-love. I'm neutral to dragonborn but I don't deny the fact that it seems to sell VERY well)
 

Okay, so now Mike Mearls is a liar? Care to produce some evidence of that, or is this just one of those blanket impugning of someone's character because they work for the big bad evil corporation?

Not calling anyone a liar at all. I just thought it was humorous thing to post. Thanks for the shining armor routine though.
 

3.5 was not a new edition. It was a revision to 3rd Edition, hence the reason it still bears the 3rd Edition trade dress and core system. Saying it was a complete and new edition is like saying that 2nd Edition Revised was a complete and new edition, and not just a revision of 2nd Edition.

I don't see it that way. As I said above, I see 3.5 more like a "do-over".
 

Those are not, in any way, shape, or form, the PHB.

And for that matter, I understand why there still aren't orcs, goblins, and trolls in the PHB.
But becoming a half-dragon was supported by the DMG.

In any case, lots of people liked dragon-ish characters. They played them and had fun and bought books about having dragon-ish characters. So 4e supports dragon-ish characters in the PHB. Having a problem with that is the ultimate in badwrongfunism.
 

To answer the OP, I don't know why you dropped out of the target audience, but as someone that has been dropped and regained several times from the D&D target audience, I can tell you why that happened to me. It might answer some of the question:

1. Later sets of Basic D&D lost me because it was too little, too late to compete with new shiny (1st ed.)

2. 1E grabbed me because I was a teen, it was shiny, and you could play an elven rogue or even multiclass as something besides an elven fighter/wizard (aka "basic elf").

3. 1E lost me because once I had the main books, I didn't much need anything else. And besides, 2E was a little too fluffy for my tastes at the time. And then I got seriously interested in non-D&D games.

4. 2E grabbed me because some of the supplements worked pretty well in my Fantasy Hero campaigns, even if I never bought or ran with the 2E rules.

5. Basic grabbed me again, because the RC was just that good. Still, there is only so long I can play with "elf" as a class.

6. 3E grabbed me because as much as I enjoy Hero, I needed a break from the character point accounting, and 3E looked like a better fit for the particular style of game I was running at the time.

7. 3E lost me, because too much of the early supplements didn't do it for me, and AU/AE did. And I began to seriously dread prepping a game when the characters were over about 9th level.

8. 3.5 never had me, because AE did some of the same things, only better (IMHO). Also, too much of the later 3.5 stuff seemed kludged onto 3E--both going too far, but not far enough, at the same time.

9. 4E grabbed me primarily because of the dread of 3E prep (see #7). There are other things I like about it, but that was the thing that got me to try it right away. Well, that and the Amazon sale, when I hadn't bought anything new and shiny in ages. There was some unspent 3.5 money burning a hole in my pocket. :) Stuff I didn't like in 3.5, when glued onto 3E, I now like when it is completely integrated into the whole ruleset.

10. All during this time, Dragon and Dungeon were working to lose me. It took Dungeon several changes of editors and the better part of 40 issues to lose me, but they managed it in the end. Pazio had already finished me off, but the DDI was the wrong way for WotC to get me back.

As to when I"ll be lost and regained again into the D&D fold, I don't know. Maybe Hero System 6E will knock my socks off, since I skipped 5E as, "too many nitpicky changes that manage to invalidate my copy of the rules without solving the issues I have with the game." Given the stated preferences of the current Hero owners, I doubt it, but anything is possible. Or maybe I'll have a retro Runequest itch. Or maybe I'll get so enamored with my Burning Wheel campaign, that I forget about everything else.

I apologize for the length, but I think this illustrates nicely those "fuzzy margins" that Charles Ryan was discussing. It would be incredibly difficult to keep only me square in the sights of the target audience, even if WotC tried to do exactly what I want, all the time. The real miracle with any solid design is that it attracts a substantial audience at all. Being more of the "glass half full" type, I'll suggest that 3E/AE keeping me entertained for the better part of 8 years is more impressive than that I got tired of it eventually. :lol: A lot of "lost me" is really "went onto something else when I'm not done with it".
 
Last edited:


Those are not, in any way, shape, or form, the PHB.
No, they were not in the Core Rules. Still, the ECL rules were included in the DMG in 3.5 (I am not sure if they were already in 3.0). And these books sold and were very popular. So, if these "monstrous" races are so popular, why not make them a direct part of the Core Rules - at least the favorite archetypes?

Of course one could argue that this also makes a good point for keeping them a separate book, since it apparently sells. But maybe Druids and Bards in PHB II would sell better then Minotaurs and Dragonborn in PHB II? ;)

And for that matter, I understand why there still aren't orcs, goblins, and trolls in the PHB.

I don't know about that. Maybe they figured that they couldn't cover more than 8 races, and picked the most popular ones. (Still could have gone without the Half-Elf, personally.)
 

Remove ads

Top