Are people still mad about . . .

[ShinHakkaider]

I dont think that I've ever seen this add, but I feel an odd kinship with this kid. That was me walking around in JHS with my game books (Red box D&D, Marvel Super Heroes and or Star Frontiers) under my arm.

Except I was black.

With glasses.

And Lee jeans and and Letigre or izod shirt.

And shell top Adidas with fat laces and a name belt buckle.

Hanging out at a lunch table with the nerds and metal heads playing RPG's. Now that I think about it, I guess I was the hip-hop representative in our League of RPG Nations...

 

[billd91]

As far as I can tell or remember, it has never been marketed towards anyone other than teens or young adults. That doesn't mean that the reading level was artificially lowered - quite the reverse, really, except for some 2nd edition stuff - but I can't remember the marketing ever targeting the older demographic.

Certainly not the D&D cartoon, and remember these 1e ads? (That's Alan Ruck from Ferris Bueller's Day Off with the glasses, incidentally.)

YouTube - Vintage Dungeons & Dragons Commercial

I'd say that 1e ad, sorry D&D ad, is targeting college-age adults, myself. It certain appears to include them and that's not the typical teen/young adult demographic.

I find it hard to pigeonhole D&D ads as just being marketed to teens because the adult fanboy/girl demographic buys so many of the same materials. Based on where I saw a lot of the ads (gaming magazines, comic books), they were shooting for a non-mainstream segment of the demographic on both teen and adult accounts.

I'd be interested in hearing if any D&D ads appeared in Heavy Metal magazine or Marvel's Epic Illustrated, neither of which would be considered marketing for teens.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'd say that 1e ad is

....not a 1e ad? Do my eyes deceive me, or is that Basic?

 

[evildmguy]

True but still the same world. Your looking at 19 years silvermoon was never a frontier city, but a city state in the wilds. It was always a major city, just without a kingdom. but in 19 years it went from a city all alone to the capital of a fledgling nation:that does not make it a new world. The world is the same place it was in 1355 but by 1374 things had changed

Look at it like this in 1760 America was colony's , points of light in the wilderness, by 1780 it was a young country. Still the same world as it was in 1760 but now the area had advanced. The in 1792 the us had 15 states, yet by 1821 a span of 29 years there were 24 states. Even if we keep it within 19 years your looking at 2 more states a large incress in size.

If ya look at the realms history ya see nations rise and fall in 20 years, none of that makes it a new world but does make it more "real"

Okay, so you are thinking about growth and change? I guess it's still a fine line we will have to agree to disagree!

In 1355, going to Silverymoon would be an adventure unto itself based on how FR5 portrayed the world. Orc tribes, barbarian tribes, goblins, trolls, and other monsters were out there, in the open, ready to attack.

By 1374, in 3.X FRCS, where are the barbarian tribes? I think they have been pushed further north of Silverymoon. The orcs have a nation. The trollmoors are still dangerous but only if entered, unless they are out attacking. In this year, traveling from Waterdeep to Silverymoon would be relatively fast and safe compared to 1355. To me, that's a different world.

And it's to that point that I don't see the new FR of 4E much different. Change happened. The cities are all still there. They just let the orc tribes and barbarian tribes back in to play! Think of how much change we are arguing in twenty years game time and now multiply that by five!

(I don't have my FRCS 3.0 to check what it says about the barbarian tribes.)

I know you didn't say this. I am. But, it seems to me that the Americas in 1500 and the Americas in 1600 are VERY different! That's how I see the changes in FR.

Don't get me wrong. I don't prefer it as a way to explain a new edition. I do find it too bad that the rules are forcing the changes. I can life with it, though, because I do like 4E.

edg

 

[billd91]

....not a 1e ad? Do my eyes deceive me, or is that Basic?

In fact, you're right. I just get into the habit of thinking of D&D as 1e AD&D in that time period.

 

[JediSoth]

I'm not really mad about 4E. I tried it, gave it, IMO, a fair shake, and determined that it's not the style of D&D for me. Reactions in my group were mixed, ranging from love to acceptance, to dislike.

At first, I thought some of the marketing was...poorly thought out. I did feel insulted by some of things I read. Now, two years later, I can interpret what they really meant, versus my knee-jerk reaction.

I thought the "Graduate your game" promotion was a pretty shrewd way to capitalize on a perceived divide in the D&D fan base, but I don't personally know anyone who took advantage of it. I would have if I had an extra book laying around, but never with the intention of switching to Exalted (again, not my cup of tea, I just like having lots of different RPGs...reading material, you know).

I'm still sad about the demise of the print editions of Dragon and Dungeon; I'd been collecting Dragon for about 20 years at the time it was canceled. Still, since I have determined that 4E is not my cup of tea, I doubt I'd be getting much use out of the magazines at this point.

The virtual table top was hyped up a lot, in my view, and it would have been interesting, but I think WotC noticed that there were several programs out there already that were doing something similar for free and there wasn't a cost effective way of them competing with that, particularly since they planned to charge for what they were going to offer (if I'm remembering the plan correctly). It was probably a good decision to drop it, even though it looked bad. Other companies have looked worse for dropping much-hyped products *cough*Duke Nukem Forever*cough*.

I still have a set of first three 4E core book, along with the first Draconomicon and Open Grave. I would run it again if I couldn't find a group to play anything else. With the right mix of people, I would even play again. But, if I had my druthers, I wouldn't. It's not a bad game, per se, it's just not a game to suit my preferences and style of play. Fortunately for me, no matter what game I want to play, I'll be able to find a game of it at Gen Con at the very least.

To each, their own, I say.

 

[Quantum]

What gets me is the elitist attitudes and feelings of entitlement that people have towards 4e. They play simply because it is not any of the other editions and they wrongly come to a conclusion about the other editions without having played it.

As for me, I have been playing D&D since at least 1980 and have seen three Editions plus basic and a few other versions of it. The books are just getting more and more expensive and numerous to buy. So I'm done. I'm not even going to touch 4e. I'm sorry the young people can't understand that kind of thing, but when they reach fifty and have seen it come to 7th (maybe even a 9th!) Edition and the youngsters are chiding them simply because it's OLD, with which according to the young crowd OLD equals useless and must never be allowed (NEVER TRUST A PERSON OVER THIRTY!) they too will develop a resistance to change and have a combative attitude.

It's not going to stop at 4e because everybody has to have their take on what makes a good rules set. And in trying to reach these people, (GOTTA MAKE A PROFIT) WoTC will produce material for them.

Similar to fans of long running television shows and franchises.

It's just a game. Let people be and have their own fun and stop worrying about things. And stop being so factional about it

 

[Piratecat]

What gets me is the elitist attitudes and feelings of entitlement that people have towards 4e. They play simply because it is not any of the other editions and they wrongly come to a conclusion about the other editions without having played it.

To be fair, I've seen that same attitude of entitlement for every single edition of the game except for one. 4e, 3.5, 3e, 1e, and (ahem) OD&D - there's always someone who thinks their game is the One True Way (tm).

(Hi, Diaglo! )

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Regardless, and though I did not run out with pitchforks, I found the tone of the leadup to 4e completely insulting even when I was ENTHUSIASTIC about a new edition.

This was me, too, exactly. I was looking forward to 3E, and what I heard from marketing and designers was a (softened, of course), "3E sucks, and this is how we're going to fix it."

This did not cause me to dislike 4e. I was excited. It was the gameplay I did not like.

Me, too, again. Much (not all, by a long shot) of what they "fixed," I hated. When we got the 4E preview in the release of the DDM 2.0, I went, "Uh-oh. Non-Pythagorean movement rules. I don't care for this." But even then I said, to myself and others, "This might just be simplified for the skirmish game. Let's see what happens."

I was onboard for 4E right up until (I felt) I was thrown off with a collective shrug from marketing and designers. "Oh, well. Nevermind that he bought every single book we released for 3.5. We'll get plenty of customers to replace him."

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

I believe it would be more accurate to say they misread a portion of the community.

It would possibly be a better question to find out why that portion reacted the way they did when another portion did not. What sets that group apart? What makes two groups, who likely have at least gaming in common, react almost entirely oppositely to the same statement? What commonalities do these groups share within themselves?

I think the answers to those questions would shed a lot more light on the issue than possibly simply dumping everything back into WOTC's lap for misreading the reactions of particular groups.

It would definitely shed light on the situation. However, it is fair to "dump" it in WotC's lap; it was their marketing, after all! It seems to me that all these questions are exactly the types of questions WotC were asking before and during the 4e roll out-- and I expect they've asked and answered since. Likely, they've adjusted things accordingly. Of course, only WotC knows for sure.

But again, it's not a community's responsibility to respond positively to a company's marketing. It's the company's responsibility to get their marketing right-- and deal with whatever results from that, positive and negative.