Search results

Perhaps you could clarify where you were going with this: . . . as a response. It really depends on the conclusions. "Best year ever" is an example of a conclusion that, for example, would require a specific explanation to have any substance.

Actually, they do talk about the prospects of several brands. D&D just isn't usually one of them. For example, Magic's strong performance was cited, while Duel Masters faltered.

What do you think I'm assuming, exactly? I haven't drawn any definitive conclusions about how the D&D roleplaying game is doing. I have pointed out that: 1) The success of the brand and the RPG are two different things. 2) Hasbro's reportage doesn't concentrate on the brand at all, but...

It just means that someone whose job it is to promote the brand is promoting the brand. They are blameless. It's their *job* to say good things about D&D and get fans pumped up. But without any specific metric, statements like this are neither honest nor dishonest. They're just optimistic. They...

It depends on how you define "significance," which is a terribly vague term. Given that I expect it to be a near-mandatory purchase by the existing fanbase which will reinterpret rules in ways I think will require non-trivial adjustments (because my examination of con games has indicated that...

Well, I suppose it's a bit different when you're fielding a situation where somebody's iPod wiped their HD thanks to a bug in an early release of iTunes:-)

I've heard people praise WotC's market research, but I also know a stats prof who didn't care for their methods. As for "D&D's Best Year Ever," the last time that was announced was before a round of layoffs that hit a friend of mine and the very person who made that statement. Let us say that I...

The fact that the contents include material from sources like Sage Advice and elsewhere, especially since "clarification" is often game design code for "unacknowledged revision."

I think the task resolution system is brilliant. I also think that variable XP tables by class and nonstandard attribute bonus schemes are goofy. I've heard the justifications, and they just don't wash with me. If you're using a comparative value system behind the XP charts, why not make the...

Because everyone else has tried and failed to make straight historical or contemporary settings fly. Even SJG, who were more successful than anyone, eventually scaled back their commitment to historical gaming, and the exceptions always had plenty of alt-history and history with a...

It depends on whether you mean, "D&D played with minis," or "the D&D minis game." If it's the latter, sure, but that has little to do with book releases either way. Frankly, after looking into it I wonder how much of RPG R&D is influenced by the desire to make it look like subsets of more...

Because it's a marketing ploy that costs the company nothing and encourages RPG players to pick up minis, and not minis players to play the RPG. Read Hasbro's annual and quarterly reports some time. The D&D RPG is greatly downplayed. WotC profits are attributed to cards, minis and publishing...

It's just a matter of presentation. I worked for Apple a few years back. I discovered that Mac "fans" complain about the company continuously. Conversely, talking about D&D's financial prospects in anything less than positive terms is often seen as some kind of gamer treachery around these...

The "minis economy" doesn't rely on the D&D *RPG.* If it did, WotC would sell minis under a model designed to support the RPG and the minis handbook would be the "4th corebook" it was originally presented as at GTS 2003 (how soon people forget . . .). But the Rules Compendium is supposed to...

Illusions. Some Norse giants are masters of illusion and famously used this to bedevil Thor.

You wouldn't, because you can release a 3.0 to 3.5 magnitude revision under the guise of a "Rules Compendium," making it a near-mandatory purchase while keeping the faith with fans who say they don't want to buy D&D again, but will buy the RC anyway.

Thing is, live action really *was* much bigger then than it is now. It's still quite significant, but there are many people who can't stand the idea that people play WoD games around a table who still trot this one out *without* joking, despite the fact that MET just can't carry a line like that...

Did they expect there to be *no* D&D critters and magic, despite the core plainly saying otherwise?

The current core WoD is a campaign model. The individual lines have settings, but the core WoD is specifically designed to have very few hard and fast rules about the nature of the supernatural. In the old games, any given thing needed to link back into Vampire, Mage or whatever setting...

It really isn't 1996 any more.