D&D 5E Street date for D&D Next Starter Game is July 15

[fjw70]

We really need some hard release dates so we can stop arguing about whether WotC is screwing up and whether fans are demanding too much, and go back to arguing whether 5e sucks or not.

Ah, the good old days.

 

[Mistwell]

That's not how statistics work. You can certainly form an argument that folks here aren't representative by virtue of some fundamental characteristic you may have discovered through surveys and research; you definitely can't form one in terms of sample size. A place like this (and others) is a more than significant statistical sample.

The quantity is sufficient, but that's where the reliability of the sample ends.

First, it's a poll of people who are inclined to post to message boards and argue about things. Hence, it is a bias towards argumentative people.

Second, it's a poll from a single source. Ask any polling agency if self-selection to a single source is a statistically sound method of polling, and I think they will tell you that it is not a reliable thing to do.

Third, WOTC conducted their own surveys and compared it to posts on their own message board and found the people posting on their message board were not representative of the larger group who answered the survey, and indeed found their message board tended to be the opposite of the larger group. This also matches when they stopped responding to people on their own message boards

 

[delericho]

I'm sure they'll get over having offended the 50 or so people who occupied those couple of threads here on EN World complaining about the price.

Those 50, and how many others who said nothing but just gave up on any interest in 5e? I don't know. You don't know. Worst of all, WotC don't know.

Especially considering even if their PR *had* done a "grand reveal" of the PHB with all its bells and whistles while simultaneously mentioning the price point... they'd still have gotten 50 or so people here on EN World complaining about it.

The difference is that those people would have been countered by "but this PHB is all you need to play", or "but this PHB is 600 pages long", or whatever. If WotC had revealed the info, we'd have both the pros and cons. As it was, all we had was the downside.

It's not enough that we got to do the playtest... it's not enough that we got special articles written about te game several times per week giving details about what was going on... it's not enough that we had adventures we could play every week in stores using the rules... we thousand people needed that *and* every detail about every single aspect of the game given to us early because we're just that special.

That's not the point. Yes, I would very much like to know exactly what products are coming, exactly when, and exactly how much they would cost. I don't think that's unreasonable. But this isn't about me.

From a PR point of view it is a bad thing if that information comes from anyone except WotC. Whether it was three months ago, today, tomorrow, or a month ago matters less than that the information comes from WotC. Because, as I said, that way they get to control exactly what gets revealed, they get to control the presentation, and they get to manage the response. By failing to prevent B&N from leaking the information (and worse, by their refusal to comment once the information was out) they gave up that opportunity.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That's not how statistics work. You can certainly form an argument that folks here aren't representative by virtue of some fundamental characteristic you may have discovered through surveys and research; you definitely can't form one in terms of sample size. A place like this (and others) is a more than significant statistical sample.

And by virtue of the fact that WotC hasn't gone out of their way to try and placate all of our caterwauling is all the indication I really need to form said argument that we aren't representative. A handful of people went digging for any and all information they could possibly find about the game because the piles and piles of info we've already gotten weren't enough for them... and then they got mad after they found something that they had to actually go through the effort themselves to dig it up, rather than have it be handed to them.

If I was WotC PR... I wouldn't give two shakes about those people either.

 

[delericho]

We really need some hard release dates so we can stop arguing about whether WotC is screwing up and whether fans are demanding too much, and go back to arguing whether 5e sucks or not.

Ah, the good old days.

I agree. Though there has been a call for a moratorium on mechanics discussions also.

 

[Morrus]

The quantity is sufficient, but that's where the reliability of the sample ends.

First, it's a poll of people who are inclined to post to message boards and argue about things. Hence, it is a bias towards argumentative people.

That's what I said. Relevant in terms of quantity (which is the metric he dismissed); not necessarily in terms quality.

 

[Morrus]

And by virtue of the fact that WotC hasn't gone out of their way to try and placate all of our caterwauling is all the indication I really need to form said argument that we aren't representative.

You're mistaking "placating caterwauling" for something else entirely. No PR department sees its job as "placating caterwauling". If that's what you think PR does, then...

If I was WotC PR... I wouldn't give two shakes about those people either.

...I'm sure WotC is glad you're not WotC PR, too!

 

[Shiroiken]

Can I ask a question for those that are complaining about the contents of the Starter Set (which we don't know yet)?

Why do you need a starter set anyway???

It is definitely not being made for anyone here that reads ENWorld every day.
It's for my neice, that just asked me this weekend if I could give her DM tips because she wants to run her first game with friends.
In July, I buy her the box and and she is the happiest girl in the world.
The starter Set is and should be for those STARTING to play D&D. Not us.
If you don't like what is offered, don't buy it and wait until August so you can create your level 20 characters.

As for me, I'll buy it to support WotC and the Free D&D I've played for the last 2 years with the playtest.
$20 for 730 days worth of gaming is a pretty good deal to me.

While not one of the people you asked, I'm going to answer why I care about the starter set. I don't want too much, but I want a Basic Player's Book (including character creation and leveling to say, Level 3), a how to DM book (with adventure design suggestions and the most well known low level monsters), and a simple adventure that can be run in a single session (with hooks for the DM to continue the game afterwards), and a cheapo set of dice. Character sheets and a playmap for the adventure would be nice, but I doubt those will included due to the price.

Reason #1 - I'm probably going to buy a copy. I'm going to use it at my FLGS to teach new players without bombarding them with the options from Standard. Those players then can decide to buy the starter set to form their own games, or pay the extra amount for the full game.

Reason #2 - I care about potential new players. If the Learn to Play set is marketed as an intro to D&D, and it sucks as a product, that can drive away new players quickly. Since the hobby really needs an infusion of new players occasionally, I don't want this to happen.

 

[DEFCON 1]

From a PR point of view it is a bad thing if that information comes from anyone except WotC. Whether it was three months ago, today, tomorrow, or a month ago matters less than that the information comes from WotC. Because, as I said, that way they get to control exactly what gets revealed, they get to control the presentation, and they get to manage the response. By failing to prevent B&N from leaking the information (and worse, by their refusal to comment once the information was out) they gave up that opportunity.

No.. from your point of view of their PR it was a bad thing. You might try and make it into some sort of objective idea that "any PR that doesn't come from the source is bad PR"... but that isn't true. There is no objective viewpoint on where good PR comes from and bad PR comes from. It's all different. Sometimes not commenting is the best PR you can do in a certain situation. Especially when the other option is to give potentially incorrect information (if it hasn't been finalized) just to placate a bunch of "I want it now!" people who couldn't even do anything with the information even if they had it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You're mistaking "placating caterwauling" for something else entirely. No PR department sees its job as "placating caterwauling". If that's what you think PR does, then...

Of course not. That's why I think they haven't succumbed to the "pressure" to release a real date until they're good and ready. Because they have no need or desire to placate anyone complaining about it.