Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 6004074" data-attributes="member: 6680772">On one hand, I've felt that there's no magic bullet, no marketing pancea that WotC can turn to that will make people say, &quot;WotC marketed that really well.&quot;&nbsp; Basically, if someone is more or less positive regarding edition change, they'll read things in a positive light.&nbsp; If they're negative towards the idea of a new edition, anything WotC says will be greeted with suspicion or offense.&nbsp; And of course, what mollifies one segment will incite another.&nbsp; This was really brought home to me reading the reactions to the Penny Arcade 5e podcast.&nbsp; For years, WotC's been taking hits for essentially saying, &quot;The game you've been playing is bad and broken&quot; or otherwise poormouthing the old edition.&nbsp; In the podcast, Mearls tells Gabe, &quot;4e's a great game, and if it's giving you exactly what you want, and you don't find anything interesting in the new edition, by all means, keep playing 4e.&quot;&nbsp; I thought it was a great thing to say: it didn't badmouth 4e, it acknowledged that it was a good and popular game, and seemed wholly outside the usual, &quot;down with the old edition, up with the new edition!&quot; type attitude that WotC has had in the past.&nbsp;But man, that comment incensed the 4e guys in another forum.&nbsp; They were saying, &quot;What, you're not even going to try selling the game to us?&nbsp; Give us a reason to care!&nbsp; What a bunch of crap!&quot;&nbsp;It's like - 1. Talk about an old edition and what it did right → &quot;I'll believe it when I see it.&quot; (with added possibility of pissing fans of an even older edition OR pissing off fans of a newer edition for &quot;going backward in game design&quot;.2. Talk about a problem in the previous edition, and how the new edition will fix it → Badmouthing the old edition.3. Diplomatically not mention the old edition → &quot;Why aren't they mentioning the old edition?&nbsp; Why are they ignoring all the goodness that was in it?&nbsp;Personally, I'm wholly unsympathetic to 3e claims of being insulted in the 4e marketing, as well as 4e claims to being insulted by the run up to the next edition.&nbsp; Those aren't insults; they are just comparing and contrasting to emphasize what they feel are the improvements in the new edition.&nbsp; There's really no other way to market a new edition.&nbsp; The only group I have sympathy for are the 2e folks.&nbsp; They really got the shaft.&nbsp; When the company is making up T-shirts putting down the old edition, now THAT'S insulting.&nbsp;But on the other hand, while I feel sympathy for WotC because people take innocuous comments in the worst possible light, I can't help but feel WotC brings it on themselves.&nbsp; For some reason, they have this thing for re-inventing D&amp;D.&nbsp; From 1974 to 2000, there was a continuity to D&amp;D throughout the editions.&nbsp; Sure there are differences, but put a LBB player at a table with 2e, and he's basically going to fit in.&nbsp; The 1e player and the BECMI player are going to have a common lexicon.&nbsp; The editions are not all the same, but they're not that different.&nbsp; B2 was written for Holmes Basic, and is perfectly compatible as is with 2e.&nbsp;But it seems like every new WotC edition is a whole paradigm shift.&nbsp; There's virtually no compatibility from edition to edition.&nbsp; The poor folks here at EN World have to write two distinct versions of an AP, and I doubt either will be compatible with 5e.&nbsp; When you do that, you force your hand.&nbsp; The only real way you can market it is to play up the differences from the old edition.&nbsp;Contrast with 2nd Edition, where the drive of the marketing was &quot;Don't worry!&nbsp; The game hasn't really changed!&quot;&nbsp; WotC needs to get off the merry-go-round, and make it so that future editions maintain compatibility.&nbsp; It should really be along the lines of 1e to 2e, Holmes to Moldvay to Mentzer.&nbsp; A few refinements, some changes in presentation, but not a whole new rule set and paradigm to learn.&nbsp; When they do that, they'll find the marketing side of things a lot easier.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Iosue, post: 6004074, member: 6680772"] On one hand, I've felt that there's no magic bullet, no marketing pancea that WotC can turn to that will make people say, "WotC marketed that really well." Basically, if someone is more or less positive regarding edition change, they'll read things in a positive light. If they're negative towards the idea of a new edition, anything WotC says will be greeted with suspicion or offense. And of course, what mollifies one segment will incite another. This was really brought home to me reading the reactions to the Penny Arcade 5e podcast. For years, WotC's been taking hits for essentially saying, "The game you've been playing is bad and broken" or otherwise poormouthing the old edition. In the podcast, Mearls tells Gabe, "4e's a great game, and if it's giving you exactly what you want, and you don't find anything interesting in the new edition, by all means, keep playing 4e." I thought it was a great thing to say: it didn't badmouth 4e, it acknowledged that it was a good and popular game, and seemed wholly outside the usual, "down with the old edition, up with the new edition!" type attitude that WotC has had in the past. But man, that comment incensed the 4e guys in another forum. They were saying, "What, you're not even going to try selling the game to us? Give us a reason to care! What a bunch of crap!" It's like - 1. Talk about an old edition and what it did right → "I'll believe it when I see it." (with added possibility of pissing fans of an even older edition OR pissing off fans of a newer edition for "going backward in game design". 2. Talk about a problem in the previous edition, and how the new edition will fix it → Badmouthing the old edition. 3. Diplomatically not mention the old edition → "Why aren't they mentioning the old edition? Why are they ignoring all the goodness that was in it? Personally, I'm wholly unsympathetic to 3e claims of being insulted in the 4e marketing, as well as 4e claims to being insulted by the run up to the next edition. Those aren't insults; they are just comparing and contrasting to emphasize what they feel are the improvements in the new edition. There's really no other way to market a new edition. The only group I have sympathy for are the 2e folks. They really got the shaft. When the company is making up T-shirts putting down the old edition, now THAT'S insulting. But on the other hand, while I feel sympathy for WotC because people take innocuous comments in the worst possible light, I can't help but feel WotC brings it on themselves. For some reason, they have this thing for re-inventing D&D. From 1974 to 2000, there was a continuity to D&D throughout the editions. Sure there are differences, but put a LBB player at a table with 2e, and he's basically going to fit in. The 1e player and the BECMI player are going to have a common lexicon. The editions are not all the same, but they're not that different. B2 was written for Holmes Basic, and is perfectly compatible as is with 2e. But it seems like every new WotC edition is a whole paradigm shift. There's virtually no compatibility from edition to edition. The poor folks here at EN World have to write two distinct versions of an AP, and I doubt either will be compatible with 5e. When you do that, you force your hand. The only real way you can market it is to play up the differences from the old edition. Contrast with 2nd Edition, where the drive of the marketing was "Don't worry! The game hasn't really changed!" WotC needs to get off the merry-go-round, and make it so that future editions maintain compatibility. It should really be along the lines of 1e to 2e, Holmes to Moldvay to Mentzer. A few refinements, some changes in presentation, but not a whole new rule set and paradigm to learn. When they do that, they'll find the marketing side of things a lot easier. [/QUOTE]

Verification