Excellent point on WotC mishandling

[Wik]

If we are going to include different lines of product, and all smaller products...There were quite a few forgotten for 3e/3.5 which would be

D20 Modern
D&D Basic 3.5 (Black Dragon)
D&D Basic 3.5 (Blue Dragon)
Star Wars D20

all of those are just as much D20 as B/X BECMI were D&D.

Sorry. You can't say Star Wars d20 is just as much D&D as BECMI. They are entirely different beasts. However, I agree with you that including D&D Basic in the revision schedule was kind of deceptful.

Unearthed Arcana was also for 3.5

Yes, but it was all house rules. It was not an "expansion" for the game, so much as a wonderful book of options. For the record, it is is my favourite wotc book, and I can't wait until they do one for 4e.

I might accept the 2e revision...but there was probably just as big a difference between the original 3e core rulebook printing...and the final 3e (prior to 3.5) erratta...in which case as the errata was easily online you'd have to add

You're confused on this. You're thinking the poster was talking about the black cover reprints (the ones with the "this is not third edition! There, everyone can rest easy" prologue that always cracks me up). What was actually being referred to was "2e's Essentials" in a sense - Skills and Powers, Combat and Tactics, High Level Campaigns, and Spells and Magic. These books drastically altered the way the game was played, and are very much 2.5E.

This, by the way, leaves us with:

OD&D
AD&D 1e
Unearthed Arcana + Survival Guides
AD&D 2e
Skills and Powers & Friends
D&D 3e
3.5e
D&D 4e
D&D Essentials

Someone else can supply the years each came out. But the fact is, it's still pretty frequent revision.

Moreover if we include optional books which could have significant impact on the game (such as Unearthed Arcana 1e) we would then have to include the 2e player options (which many call 2.5), but with 3e that would includ All the Class books (with as many classes and feats I'd say they were as significant as some of the 2.5 Options books), and then with 3.5 the Complete Books version, Players Handbook II, Unearthed Arcana...and lest we forget...the BIG one...book of Nine Swords...and though not really popular...possibly Incarnum.

First, and don't take this too much as a criticism, I think people would respond to what you're saying if you use fewer run-on sentences. This bit quoted is all one sentence, and it makes you come off as a breathless, ranting sort of fellow. A quick once-over before posting to clarify your idea is always helpful.

Anyways, onto the point at hand, I think Unearthed Arcana, when coupled with the two Survival Guides, really changed the way the game was played and perceived - which to me, constitutes being considered a "revision" in a way that splat books never will.

I agree that if you use the magic book w/ reserve feats and bo9s in 3e, you would be well suited to be considered playing a new version of the game - those books make D&D drastically different.

PS: As I said...if D&D ceases to be published in a few years...most likely after 5e...you can't say this came out of nowhere...that no one expected it or warned you...or even pointed out the problems. Of course seeing some of the blind responses here I expect a LOT of whining from people who can't believe that bad marketing skills would lead to the demise of WotC or D&D. On the otherhand, maybe I'm the one in the wrong...but we won't really know for a few years yet...

This is the part I don't get. You're calling other posters "blind" when they are posting well-reasoned arguments to your posts, which are promptly ignored as you type furiously back. This all makes me think that they're not blind... you're deaf.

 

[GreyLord]

This is the part I don't get. You're calling other posters "blind" when they are posting well-reasoned arguments to your posts, which are promptly ignored as you type furiously back. This all makes me think that they're not blind... you're deaf.

Actually, I think I say I hope I'm wrong...but as a 4e player, I'd say I'm one of the few 4e players that would even observe some of the stuff I stated and agree with it. I don't think that many 4e players would admit that...hey...there's some serious problems going on at WotC. I feel it's the marketing. I don't think I've seen a ONE who's saying WotC is doing well to post any real marketing items that really support it. The most was a number I saw that was unsubstantiated of 41,000 subscribers to DDi (though I was under the impression the last number thrown out there was in the low 20,000's) which could mean WotC would be bringing in around 400,000 USD a month. Even with the lower number that's 200,000 a month.

With the low number that's close to 2.5 million a year, with the higher number that's closer to 5 million. So what do they do...piss off a bunch of people about DDi (personally I don't care about the changes to CB...and think if they can get it working on cell phones and TV's it could be a good thing) with the way they released information on the CB. That's POOR marketing. It gives bad word of mouth even if nothing else.

Truthfully, the only good marketing in the slightest I've seen about WotC with D&D in the past 3 years has been in regards to their Red Box release.

Overall, from their no information release and relying on a fansite for information for just about all their games (Heroscape...now canx'd by WotC, to A&A), to the disappointing quality concerns they've released with some of their games (A&A Pacific 1940 to Betrayal on House on the Hill....though they HAVE given out additional planes for AAP1940 after much complaining by the buyers and were easy to contact and get said planes)...to their handling of the Essentials release (which passed a ton of bad karma there too which was unnecessary and could have easily been positive Karma)...their marketing as all the earmarks of people who have no idea what marketing even is.

This isn't about revisions...this is about marketing...and most people claiming WotC is doing great have not actually posted ANYTHING about WotC doing ANY good marketing overall in relation to what actually would be considered GOOD marketing.

Everyone's just trying to concentrate on the single point of whether revisions are good or bad marketing (which I've already notated can be GOOD OR BAD...but are inherently RISKY which is why they can go either way and hence not a smart idea to do something that drastic that often).

They are ignoring that the entire original post had very little to do with that point, but a lOT to do with all the BAD marketing strategies (very similar to what TSR was doing) WotC is currently involved with.

 

[Flatus Maximus]

Let's all chip in and buy GreyLord a comma.

 

[renau1g]

Actually, I think I say I hope I'm wrong...but as a 4e player, I'd say I'm one of the few 4e players that would even observe some of the stuff I stated and agree with it. I don't think that many 4e players would admit that...hey...there's some serious problems going on at WotC. I feel it's the marketing. I don't think I've seen a ONE who's saying WotC is doing well to post any real marketing items that really support it. The most was a number I saw that was unsubstantiated of 41,000 subscribers to DDi (though I was under the impression the last number thrown out there was in the low 20,000's) which could mean WotC would be bringing in around 400,000 USD a month. Even with the lower number that's 200,000 a month..

D&D Insider has 41644 users according to the wizards site. Therefore there's that many active accounts. That doesn't take into account those who've unsubscribed but still have time left until it expires. I'd like to see it again in a month when a bunch of people claim to have their accounts expiring later this month and aren't re-subbing, and all those Mac users should sign up in droves now. Where does everyone get $10/month from? I paid $71.40 USD for my 12 month sub. That's only $6/month.

Link:
Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

 

[GreyLord]

D&D Insider has 41644 users according to the wizards site. Therefore there's that many active accounts. That doesn't take into account those who've unsubscribed but still have time left until it expires. I'd like to see it again in a month when a bunch of people claim to have their accounts expiring later this month and aren't re-subbing, and all those Mac users should sign up in droves now. Where does everyone get $10/month from? I paid $71.40 USD for my 12 month sub. That's only $6/month.

Link:
Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

Actually at $10 a month it would be 410,000 a month or more. The real amount is probably between the 200,000 and 400,000 a month that I listed when taking annual subscriptions...etc. into account. Unless every single one of those 41K is a monthly subscriber, or an overwhelming majority in which case it trends more towards the 400K amount.

 

[Beginning of the End]

If we are going to include different lines of product, and all smaller products...There were quite a few forgotten for 3e/3.5 which would be

D20 Modern
D&D Basic 3.5 (Black Dragon)
D&D Basic 3.5 (Blue Dragon)
Star Wars D20

I'm going to simply ignore the blatantly non-D&D games on your list, but if you really want to include introductory sets we can add another 6-12 pre-WotC editions to the list. Another half dozen or so Basic Sets in the '90s, First Quest, the Fast Play game, and so forth.

(You also missed the 2008 4E Starter Set.)

But let's set aside your rather ridiculous quibbling and get down to brass tacks: However you want to define "revision", as long as you apply that definition fairly and consistently there's really no question that the pace of revision has not meaningfully increased.

Now, sure. If we follow your example and apply one definition of "revision" to WotC's editions and a different definition of "revision" to TSR's editions then we can find a discrepancy.

But let's not engage in that level of spurious intellectual dishonesty, 'kay?

 

[GreyLord]

I'm going to simply ignore the blatantly non-D&D games on your list, but if you really want to include introductory sets we can add another 6-12 pre-WotC editions to the list. Another half dozen or so Basic Sets in the '90s, First Quest, the Fast Play game, and so forth.

(You also missed the 2008 4E Starter Set.)

But let's set aside your rather ridiculous quibbling and get down to brass tacks: However you want to define "revision", as long as you apply that definition fairly and consistently there's really no question that the pace of revision has not meaningfully increased.

Now, sure. If we follow your example and apply one definition of "revision" to WotC's editions and a different definition of "revision" to TSR's editions then we can find a discrepancy.

But let's not engage in that level of spurious intellectual dishonesty, 'kay?

Yeah, like including TWO SEPARATE game lines as the same game like they attempted to do with BX and BECMI to AD&D?

That got on my nerves...

As well as people doing spurious sidelining instead of actually addressing the main point of the OP, which was the bad job with marketing.

Talk about a couple of spurious intellectual dishonesty going on...rather than point fingers and try to do strawman, as well as trying to win NOT by providing evidence or information, but the old adage of trying to discredit...why not actually do some profitable discussion on this topic?

If you want to see two separate games as the same thing with revisions...then you have to see D20 (which was a LOT CLOSER IN MECHANICS WITH MODERN AND OTHERS then BECMI and AD&D) as a revision as well. That's why I posted it, to show the ridiculous nature of the revision history someone tried to post there.

Mayhaps we should call it...specifically a revision counts as a SPECIFIC DEFINED EDITION. AKA...1st Edition...2nd Edition...3rd Edition...4th Edition...

With minor revisions being also defined specifically as have been recognized in the past as in 3.5 Edition...

And yet you still go off trying to sideline the entire debate into a revision debate rather than actually address the original post of how terribly WotC is doing with their marketing.

Revisions is only ONE of several points...and not really even the MAIN point of it all.

So we can see people don't necessarily see revisions as a bad thing (though I think all those who still play 3.X or Pathfinder and refuse to touch 4e may be a SIGNIFICANT piece of evidence in my favor regarding some risks that can occur due to that)...we'll ignore any evidence and simply let that line drop. It's going nowhere. People are concentrating so much on that one point that they are trying to point out to the one cloud in the sky whilst missing the sun.

 

[prosfilaes]

What was actually being referred to was "2e's Essentials" in a sense - Skills and Powers, Combat and Tactics, High Level Campaigns, and Spells and Magic. These books drastically altered the way the game was played, and are very much 2.5E.

Except they were clearly labeled as optional books, rules that were introduced in one book (like split attributes) weren't used in another, and no book outside the one's you named depended on them. I think they're closer to 3E's Unearthed Arcana than 2.5E.

 

[Remus Lupin]

When I was 10 and first getting into D&D, I really didn't even notice the difference between BX and AD&D. I used everything on both editions indiscriminately, and certainly inaccurately, but heck, I was only 10 and we had a great time playing, which is what in the end it should be about.

By the way, I don't disagree with Graylord on the subject of marketing. But at the end of the day, I just try to think of 4th ed as a different game, one I prefer not to play, but might if I ever get the yen to participate in a Dark*Sun or Gamma World campaign.

 

[Wik]

Except they were clearly labeled as optional books, rules that were introduced in one book (like split attributes) weren't used in another, and no book outside the one's you named depended on them. I think they're closer to 3E's Unearthed Arcana than 2.5E.

Essentials is labelled as "optional", too.... that doesn't mean that most of the game moving forward is going to implement them. Ditto, in fact, for much of what was presented as "3.5E". Remember all those claims that you could still play the game with your 3.0 rulebooks?

Skills and Powers et all were absolutely optional, and the GM had a lot of choice in just what he chose to include. However, that was the nature of 2nd edition in its entirety - a plethora of options. That being said, Skills and Powers et all did seem like an attempt to codify the games rules a bit - it was just done so in a strange way when we look back on it.