A subtle reminder from wizards.(or not so subtle)

[Tony Vargas]

Well, it seems to me that no matter how many times WotC says:

• The Essentials consist of 10 key products that will form the baseline experience for the roleplaying game moving forward.
• The Essentials are NOT a new game or a new edition.
• The Essentials are NOT replacing the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, or Monster Manual.
• The Essentials are providing a better framework and starting point for new players while also providing new options for existing players to add to their games.
• The Essentials products work with all other Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game products, from Player’s Handbook to new products releasing in 2011 and beyond—just like all other D&D products we release.

rumors and assertions to the contrary keep cropping up.

Have you ever worked in 'Corporate America?' For those who don't speak corporate Obfuscese, here are some translations:

"The Essentials consist of 10 key products that will form the baseline experience for the roleplaying game moving forward." = 4e just isn't selling well enough, so we're trying something desperate to goose sales.

"The Essentials are NOT a new game or a new edition. " = We can't admit that Essentials are a new edition, because people are still mad at us over releasing 3.5 so soon after 3e.

"The Essentials are NOT replacing the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, or Monster Manual. " = Essentials are effectively re-printing the basic things you need to play the game from the PH, DMG, and MM, with existing errata - and some major changes that we hope will bring back some of the fans we've lost over the last two years. But, hey, if you want to lug around 3 hardcover books and a reem of errata printed out at your own expense, we can't stop you.

"The Essentials are providing a better framework and starting point for new players while also providing new options for existing players to add to their games. " = We really hope we can move more units with these cheaper boxed sets and softbacks.

"The Essentials products work with all other Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game products, from Player’s Handbook to new products releasing in 2011 and beyond—just like all other D&D products we release." = Please, please, please, buy these things. We've lost too many customers already with 4e. We're really sorry. Don't hate us. Please buy Essentials or Hasbro will transfer us all to Siberia.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Have you ever worked in 'Corporate America?' For those who don't speak corporate Obfuscese, here are some translations:

"The Essentials consist of 10 key products that will form the baseline experience for the roleplaying game moving forward." = 4e just isn't selling well enough, so we're trying something desperate to goose sales.

"The Essentials are NOT a new game or a new edition. " = We can't admit that Essentials are a new edition, because people are still mad at us over releasing 3.5 so soon after 3e.

"The Essentials are NOT replacing the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, or Monster Manual. " = Essentials are effectively re-printing the basic things you need to play the game from the PH, DMG, and MM, with existing errata - and some major changes that we hope will bring back some of the fans we've lost over the last two years. But, hey, if you want to lug around 3 hardcover books and a reem of errata printed out at your own expense, we can't stop you.

"The Essentials are providing a better framework and starting point for new players while also providing new options for existing players to add to their games. " = We really hope we can move more units with these cheaper boxes sets and softbacks.

"The Essentials products work with all other Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game products, from Player’s Handbook to new products releasing in 2011 and beyond—just like all other D&D products we release." = Please, please, please, buy these things. We've lost too many customers already with 4e. We're really sorry. Don't hate us. Please buy Essentials or Hasbro will transfer us all to Siberia.

Hey, you have it all in:
- 4e sells badly.
- 4e caused droves of people to jump ship.
- Hasbro is behind it all (you forgot to write it Ha$bro, though).

Btw, they released Dark Sun because Hasbro bought several tons of sand for cheap on a firesale. Mr. Jonathon M. Hasbro called the D&D brand manager personally and said: "sand, you hear me! Lots of it!!!!!" You heard it here first.

 

[MrMyth]

Okay, go ahead and show me how the purple worm can make a decent solo encounter. Not with other monsters, but as intended as a creature by itself designed to take on five players of the same level (or around that, EL + 2 or so). Until then I think it more than satisfactorily meets the definition of broken and many other MM creatures do also.

I ran a fun encounter with one, where a sandworm version burst out of the desert while the PCs were traveling, swallowed one PC, and then the rest of the striker-heavy party (fresh at the start of the day) did everything possible to nova it before it could flee with the PC it had swallowed - all while dealing with swirling whirlpools of sand filling the area. The worm died to ongoing damage some 10 squares underground, which became an entertaining skill challenge to get their swallowed companion free.

It was a fun, cinematic encounter. I don't think it a likely outcome of most fights with the Purple Worm, which is absolutely a poorly designed monster. But I think one thing many people forget is that none of the monsters in the MM1 are unusable - they just have a few flaws the DM needs to keep in mind (or get lucky with not having come up), and can still make for perfectly fine encounters.

 

[DracoSuave]

Hey, you have it all in:
- 4e sells badly.
- 4e caused droves of people to jump ship.
- Hasbro is behind it all (you forgot to write it Ha, though).

Btw, they released Dark Sun because Hasbro bought several tons of sand for cheap on a firesale. Mr. Jonathon M. Hasbro called the D&D brand manager personally and said: "sand, you hear me! Lots of it!!!!!" You heard it here first.

Exactly.

I can get behind healthy cynicism, but when the core message of the cynic is

'OMG A COMPANY WANTS TO MAKE MONEY'

then I stop listening because the alternative is 'The company has no desire to turn a profit.'

If you think it's suspicious that a company desires profit, you're as crazy as this guy.

 

[CovertOps]

Can't XP you DS until I spread some around, but now that I've seen level 10 I think that should be the top.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not sure you how you guys missed it, but my point was that companies /need/ to make money. And, they need to try to avoid antagonizng their customers, even if it means occassionally being less than frank with them. WotC seems to be in a tough position, and if you want to see D&D continue in print, we should all cut them some slack - and buy the damn books (or at least subscribe to DDI, that's an income stream, they can point to it and say: "lookee, there's some revenue, we do deserve to exist").

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'm not sure you how you guys missed it, but my point was that companies /need/ to make money. And, they need to try to avoid antagonizng their customers, even if it means occassionally being less than frank with them. WotC seems to be in a tough position, and if you want to see D&D continue in print, we should all cut them some slack - and buy the damn books (or at least subscribe to DDI, that's an income stream, they can point to it and say: "lookee, there's some revenue, we do deserve to exist").

They're not the only ones. Your previous post reeks of sarcasm, and the extremely strong inference is that you hate corporate America and thus begrudge WotC making a dime off you. Or, at least, making another dime off you. From your post (maybe not you specifically now), people like that come off as feeling entitled to a free book because you've been a customer for so long. That's just not right.

Now, if your point is that a company shouldn't screw their customers, I doubt anyone would disagree. But, we certainly disagree that that's what WotC is trying to do here. They are certainly not antagonizing their customers. I don't plan to buy essentials and don't feel slighted in the slightest.

 

[IronWolf]

They're not the only ones. Your previous post reeks of sarcasm, and the extremely strong inference is that you hate corporate America and thus begrudge WotC making a dime off you. Or, at least, making another dime off you. From your post (maybe not you specifically now), people like that come off as feeling entitled to a free book because you've been a customer for so long. That's just not right.

I think you are putting things on Tony Vargas' post that aren't there. I don't see him begrudging WotC an opportunity to make money or even a hate for corporate america. I don't even see him making it seem like he is entitled to a free book or that he has been wronged by WotC.

While I don't agree with each statement (I suspect 4e has sold reasonably well) and some parts are dramatized for effect, I think he's just trying to shine light on the fact that to sell this as a revision would be a mistake for WotC to do - even if it is a revision. He's pretty much pointing out that Marketing departments are paid to spin product releases in a manner such that the most number of people will want to buy them and at the same time alienate as few people as possible.

The important thing in all of this and what seems to be getting lost - whether Essentials is a revision or not - is what do you think of Essentials? So many people seem to be lost in the argument of "it is a revision" or "it isn't a revision" that people are forgetting what matters - what do you think of the changes in Essentials?

Now, if your point is that a company shouldn't screw their customers, I doubt anyone would disagree. But, we certainly disagree that that's what WotC is trying to do here. They are certainly not antagonizing their customers. I don't plan to buy essentials and don't feel slighted in the slightest.

I don't see his post as trying to say WotC is trying to screw customers. He's just trying to point out that marketing will paint the picture they want to paint. That's what companies do.

I think the discussion should instead focus on 4e Essentials and what it brings to the table instead of WotC's marketing campaign which is largely irrelevant to the quality of the product.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I think the discussion should instead focus on 4e Essentials and what it brings to the table instead of WotC's marketing campaign which is largely irrelevant to the quality of the product.

Not only to the quality, but to the actual content. My beef with marketing aside.....

In principle, I agree. However, there isn't enough actual information to have a legitimate discussion yet of what Essentials actually bring to the table, AFAICT. And in a vacuum of information, the internet will make up some nonsense to talk about, search each other's statements for things to get huffy about, and so on. Sadly, it's what we do.

And, back to marketing, their marketing isn't helping. It's almost more obfuscatory than revealing. And that throws more fuel on the side conversations and kvetching.

 

[DracoSuave]

Not only to the quality, but to the actual content. My beef with marketing aside.....

In principle, I agree. However, there isn't enough actual information to have a legitimate discussion yet of what Essentials actually bring to the table, AFAICT. And in a vacuum of information, the internet will make up some nonsense to talk about, search each other's statements for things to get huffy about, and so on. Sadly, it's what we do.

And, back to marketing, their marketing isn't helping. It's almost more obfuscatory than revealing. And that throws more fuel on the side conversations and kvetching.

I don't understand how it is obsfucatory.

Now, you could make the claim that it is obsfucatory if they didn't put out previews, and when essentials comes out, you see that it completely invalidates everything that came before, and that it is completely incompatible...

...but really. Let's be absolutely rational here.

Let's assume that Essentials is not a complete game overhaul, that it is just a stripped down starter product with some value to the larger consumer, and that it is fully compatible with the earlier product.

Now.

How can you say that without it seeming obsfucating? Short of releasing the whole book, what could they possibly do to show you this is not the case?

Really.

Think about that a moment.

The reason I'm not losing my head over this is because they've released this sort of product before. Both TSR -and- Wizards have traditionally liked to create entry level versions of their products. This isn't exactly new, the idea of an entry level product into Dungeons and Dragons is as old as... well... the product itself.

The only difference I see this time is that they've made the products alternative builds and ways of playing classes, some of which certain players have asked for and demanded. So not only have they made a started product, they've also made class variants that are designed to appeal to certain customers who feel the desire for those variants.

That's all it is. They've been up front about this the entire time. This is how they've presented it from day 1.

I don't understand what they are obsfucating here. The only obsfucation I see is a lot of people's anti-corporate bias obsfucating their grasp of history and current affairs. Wizards is NOT a company prone to obsfucating or misdirecting customers. It never has been, and there's no reason to see it doing so in the future. Oh, it can change its mind from time to time, but every corporation does that; that's not a betrayal of the customers when it's done openly. Wizards is a -very- transparent company, and the only way you can believe otherwise is if you're not actually paying attention to it.

And yeah, I'll even bet my avatar on it.