Has the horse left the barn?

The answer is what will make or break the success of the edition. Coming out with such stuff as Gamma World and its ramdomized card boosters, and other stuff so soon into the edition, lots of very experimental stuff, speaks to me that they need to boost sales, and are now taking chances.
An interesting take on it. But this may not be a reaction to poor sales. I don't know how biz plans typically work, but it seems reasonable to me that they may have been planning to do it this way for a while.

Of course, only WotC knows for sure ;)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

If you look at it from the perspective of "everything they're doing is a rehash" (e.g. all the campaign worlds including Gamma World being old IP, re-releasing the rules in a very-similar-to-'83-Basic-Set format, etc.), then that's a pretty strong indication that they're still leaning heavily on "nostalgia buys" and "DnD4Lyfers" (people that pre-order every product and get long-term subscriptions to DDI, because they're OK with the new system and otherwise addicted to the shiny feelings of yesteryear).

I guess you can make the argument that their "strategy to get new gamers" is to re-release almost exactly the same material (modulo rules revisions etc.), with almost exactly the same packaging (i.e. to get fad-lightning to strike twice by duplicating the previous marketing strategy), but I'd tend to doubt it.

(I'm also not saying that they haven't innovated at all, but I'm really not seeing the reaching-out-to-young-gamers angle, unless they're sitting on an 4e "Avatar the Last Airbender" setting or something. Does "post-apocalyptic mutated nuclear wasteland" even mean anything to people born after the Cold War ended?)
 

(I'm also not saying that they haven't innovated at all, but I'm really not seeing the reaching-out-to-young-gamers angle, unless they're sitting on an 4e "Avatar the Last Airbender" setting or something. Does "post-apocalyptic mutated nuclear wasteland" even mean anything to people born after the Cold War ended?)

I think the board game and Red box are there reach out to new gamers while the nuclear apocalypse is still fresh in new gamers minds thanks to Fallout 3 and its DLC.
 

Does "post-apocalyptic mutated nuclear wasteland" even mean anything to people born after the Cold War ended?

Sure- not only are the original RPGs still floating around- and as noted, being re-released, in some cases- but the fiction that inspired them is still around as well.

Not to mention new fiction from the 1990s and later.

Whether they get exposed to such, however, is largely dependent upon the people they hang out with.

I was born in 1967, and I have a lifelong love of SF/Fantasy and the mythologies of various cultures. Part of the reason for that is that my father is deeply enamored of SF and mythology, so I grew up reading stories from his childhood. And as I devoured the stuff he exposed me to, I found my own stuff to read, until I'd gone and read...well, lots of stuff dating back thousands of years.

If a post-Cold War kid has someone like my Dad around them, they'll find the relevant fiction.

In addition, if they have any love for channels like Chiller, Sy-FY (*sigh* what moron thought THAT was a good name?), or any channel or show devoted to broadcasting classic Sci-Fi/Fantasy shows & movies, they'll quickly find out about that genre.
 

Alright, if they're trying to piggyback off of Fallout popularity, that might make some sense, but I'd also argue that "cheesy radioactive mutants" isn't necessarily what was selling the console game. In other words, how much are "new gamers" willing to buy into the concept if WW3 isn't much of a blip on the cultural radar any more? Is Gamma World as an IP worth more than, say, a one-book release?
 

Add another vote for "That horse left the barn and isn't looking back."

Pathfinder fills my Dungeons and Dragons needs. 4e was too much of a departure from the game I loved for me to move to it. I'll check out 5e when it comes out but putting lipstick on 4e won't change the fundemental philosophical differences I have with the designers.
 

I have waited to start a home 4E campaign until this year. My first foray into running 4E (aside from the past two GenCons and several gamedays) will start in about 10 days. I intend to run modified version of the WotC adventures and really test out the 4E system from 1-30 with a trusted group of players. I am someone who was initially VERY turned off by 4E's marketing, but I also feel that now with 2.5 years of development I "get" 4E and its design philosophies. Like others I have shamelessly stolen my favorite bits of 4E (esp. monster design) and ported them back to 3.5/Pathfinder, my system of long-term choice.

However... whether 4E rocks my world or not in the upcoming campaign... I am off the edition treadmill and 4E will be my last edition. My plan is to collect PF and 4E stuff for another year or two (perhaps longer with Pathfinder) and then I'll have a collection that my family, friends & I can play until I'm old and gray. I've nearly reached that "critical mass" of my collection where there is an effectively infinite universe of worlds to explore.

It's a good place to be, and 4E is part of that universe.
 

With the 2010 releases of PHB3 and its "hybrid" multi-classed characters and the new "basic" beginners rules. Would you be willing to try it again? Have you already made your mind up about 4e?

Clearly this is a question for those that were turned off or disappointed by 4e.

In the case of my gaming group, it wasn't a like or dislike of 4E. There were discussions about that and some grumbles and misgivings and some juicy rationalizations...

But let's be honest: they were excuses as much as they were actual reasons.

The blunt truth is this: WotC killed 3.5 too early from the perspective of a large number of their established and loyal customer base. 3.5 was a product that still had a LARGE value-in-use to gamers who had purchased a vast amount of material for it. We had barely scratched the surface of that vast amount of material even as WotC was running out of topics to exhaustively cover.

I understand that from WotC's point of view, the product was near the end of its life cycle. That they had rushed out such a vast amount of material in such a short period of time, it was difficult to come up with more rules to sell to the same players. I get that and I understand it.

Problem was, we had barely cracked the spine on two-thirds of the books we had purchased. And that was, by the way, a helluva lot of books, too.

And those books have not gone away. They are still sitting on our shelves. And there are STILL a lot of them that have not really been even cracked yet.

So it comes down to this: what was in WotC's interest in terms of maintaining sales and product lines at a monthly sales level they wanted was not an interest that was shared by many of their customer base. 4E was just too soon - and no amount of justifying why "it was time" was going to fly with a significant portion of that installed customer base.

So it wasn't that 4E was good or that 4E was bad. It's that 4E was too early for a good portion of the customer base.

Please understand, most of the guys in my gaming group have 50 or 60, and some more than 100 3.5 hardbacks on their shelves (including 3.xx OGL material).

Back in 2007, it would not be an exaggeration to say that half of those books had not had the spines cracked on them since a day or three after purchase.

You want to revise, reset and resell under those circumstances? Sure. Good marketing when you can get it - but just not a surprise when you can't succeed so soon after selling to those same customers a vast amount of material they have barely even used.

At the current rate that WotC is pooping out material, I imagine by the time that 5E comes along, it might be that the 3.5/Pathfinder fans might be ready at that point to give a new edition a try. Maybe. I expect even then, it might be a tad early, too.

So imo, this isn't about editions, what they had or what they didn't have in terms of rules or features or mechanics. It's about investment of dollars, value-in-use to the customer of existing "installed product lines", and new product timing. At one hardcover a month, the product output of WotC is simply far ahead of what their customer base can integrate, use and become bored with to the point it wants something new.

That is so whether it's 3E, 3.5, 4E, 5th Ed or 13th Ed.

Sorry, but there it is. If WotC is not able to get a better grip on their product release schedule and learn to stretch out their product cycles over a longer period of time -- the same thing is bound to happen a few years from now too. Maybe even to the ruin of the brand. *shrug*

Sometimes, the commercial interests of a hobby game manufacturer do not coincide with the interests of a large percentage of their fan base.

That divergence of interest should not be surprising to anyone.
 
Last edited:

I was open for a revision of 3.5. I liked Star Wars SAGA a lot, and hoped 4E would be similar (an evolutionary change). Instead, they opted to make 4E a revolutionary system, and we all know revolutions rarely end up being peaceful...

You might want to check out e20, being done by GM Sarli, one of the authors of SW SAGA. He's about halfway to meeting his patronage-model target of $10K to write the game. If you're interested, please consider supporting it!
 

With the 2010 releases of PHB3 and its "hybrid" multi-classed characters and the new "basic" beginners rules. Would you be willing to try it again? Have you already made your mind up about 4e?

Clearly this is a question for those that were turned off or disappointed by 4e.

No. Horse has left the barn.

Tried and tested 4E. This edition is not fun for me and most of the people I play with. Offering "hybrid classes" and a beginners' boxed set does not instill enough fun things, nor does it fix enough of the unfun things.

OT question: Has anyone tried the revised Elements of Magic that I see in the sidebar? Looks very interesting!
 

Remove ads

Top