Are people still mad about . . .

[Raven Crowking]

the orc within,

You're not alone in finding it bizarre that anyone would seriously ask, in effect, "Are corporations really responsible for their adverstising?"....or seemingly assert that the correct answer is an emphatic "No!"

RC

 

[renau1g]

Well to be fair there's no way 4e could have come out with everything 3e had by the end of it (although there were some previous core elements missing, but others added). That said for the low, low price of $15 your players can have access to every source book released to date for 4e. Buy one month of DDI, get access to all the updated rules, etc. in the character builder. Much cheaper than even 1 supplement for 3e.

 

[Maggan]

On topic, I must be the only person not mad about the cancellation of the magazines--I miss them as part of a legacy, but I never got into Dungeon and was getting kind of tired of the Greyhawk and demon obsessions by the end of Paizo's run on Dragon.

Nope. I was mad for a while because Paizo couldn't deliver the magazines to me as a subscriber.

So when the mags turned digital it meant that delivery was guaranteed, which I felt was a step up.

/M

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

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


edg

Eh guess we will as I pulled out my grey The north boxed set and it matches up pretty well with the FRCS. The only big diffances I see is many arrows is starting to organize the orc into a vast hoard {again} and the founding of the silvermarches has made the roads more guarded, still not a cake walk but big caravans are well guarded. All this was hinted at in the north boxed set as something that may happen as it has happened many times before only to be swept away by an orc hoard. It's still a very much "wild west" kinda place. the rule of law extends just as far as you can make it and just as long as ya have the men standing there backing you up

All in all very minor changes

anyhow the 4E setting has a map you barely can tell is the realms, they reconnected a bunch of stuff and made stuff up as from a pod cast the dev team said paraphrased here "we don't know why x is like this or really like the setting much. It was never really a setting we enjoyed" at that point I knew it was screwed. If you don't know something any realms GM worth his salt would ( or that was covered in the 3.0 FRCS) the creator is a phone call away. Do not make up stuff that goes against whats already there

Anyhow as I said all it showed me was 4e could not be used to enjoy the game I wanted to run without reworking my fav setting. Which was a mistake, as I think it turned more FR fans away from the system then it gained back

 

[BryonD]

Yet, you still are incapable of answering the question.

When was D&D EVER marketed to anyone other than teens? I was asking Lanefan the same thing since he's claiming that 2e and now 4e are being marketed to a younger audience. My point is that D&D has never contained much if any adult content, has always been directed at teens and nothing has really changed.

So, at what point in the history of the game, has D&D ever been targetted at anyone other than teens? What bit of marketing has been done by either WOTC or TSR that directly targeted anyone other than the teen or maybe the very young twenties market?

Unless "your point" is that D&D has never contained much if any material that should be considered inappropriate for children, then I reject your claim. D&D contains vast amounts of adult content. It just happens to be true that this content is perfectly suitable for children as well as adults. Thus no restriction is merited.

I think that the tiny pool of advertisements being shown as examples are highly being presented in a misleading manner. Gamers, by and large are gamers. You are not going to get a big bang for your buck running a D&D commercial during Lost. Far too few of the viewers are potential customers, and those who are already know of your product.
Yet if the adds being shown constituted the bulk of D&D advertising, then D&D has gone virtually unadvertised throughout its life.

I've seen lots of D&D ads in comic books over the years. And while many comics are assumed to be "kids" stuff, the fact of the matter is that there have always been a lot of adults who read them. And unlike Adults who watch Lost, Adults who read comics has a fairly reasonable cross section with adults who might play D&D. Posters on the comic store wall, books on the shelf, and ads in appropriate periodicals are the the old school mainstays of D&D marketing. None of these can be objectively proclaimed as aimed at children only.

You have made a proclamation of truth. And you are taking the position that your claim is true, not just until someone proves you wrong, but until someone forces you to admit it. Sorry, but the burden of proof is on your shoulders. I think your claim is out to lunch.

 

[Dannager]

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.

Not so.

The company has no more "responsibility" to market their game effectively to any particular segment of their fan base, any more than that fan base has a responsibility to react appropriately.

The company is free to market its products however it sees fit, and the fan base is free to react as it wishes. However, if the company markets poorly, the fans will probably get fed up and stop giving the company their business. Likewise, and here's the kicker, if the fans react in a way that is irresponsible and simply inappropriate to the actions of the company, the company will probably decide that catering to that segment of the fanbase isn't worth the headache.

If you don't like what the company is doing, go ahead and say so. But have good reasons for it. If you come off as reactionary, you will probably just end up marginalized for it.

 

[BryonD]

The company is free to market its products however it sees fit, and the fan base is free to react as it wishes. However, if the company markets poorly, the fans will probably get fed up and stop giving the company their business. Likewise, and here's the kicker, if the fans react in a way that is irresponsible and simply inappropriate to the actions of the company, the company will probably decide that catering to that segment of the fanbase isn't worth the headache.

The former is called boycott. Can you tell what the later is called?

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

If you don't like what the company is doing, go ahead and say so. But have good reasons for it. If you come off as reactionary, you will probably just end up marginalized for it.

Not to war here, but folks have said so, many times. Some folks just do not like what they have said is all. I was put off by being told "my game sucks" about 5 or 6 times along with other cheap shots {they really needed some PR} So don't call it reactiony or hyperbole when your told "your game sucks" by the dev team.

If someone says to you"your games suck if you use 4e" you would be a bit put off. But it was ok for the 4e dev team to say it to 3.5 players and it's the 3.5 players fault for reacting to it I guess. 4E players get mad and upset if someone downs 4e, yet act as if 3.5 players overreacted when their game was talked down about and made fun of . It was the same thing except it was Wotc employees doing the bashing.

 

[Scribble]

I can't tell which is creepier... The Wizard or the little girl looking at him.


Why was everything so damn creepy back in the day? LSD?

 

[Mistwell]

Not to war here, but folks have said so, many times. Some folks just do not like what they have said is all. I was put off by being told "my game sucks" about 5 or 6 times along with other cheap shots {they really needed some PR} So don't call it reactiony or hyperbole when your told "your game sucks" by the dev team. If someone says to you"your games suck and your player are not having fun if you use 4e" you would be a bit put off. But it was ok for the 4e dev team to say it to 3.5 players and it's the 3.5 players fault for reacting to it I guess.

They didn't say your games sucks.

They said some things that people interpreted that way. Others did not interpret them that way. Everyone agrees they never used the words "your games suck".