D&D “Essentials” as a product line = making it less daunting to get into the game?

[Beginning of the End]

So you're saying book format has been flawed for the past 30 years?

Possibly, but not necessarily.

What is clearly flawed, however, is the methodology of the Starter Set: This product is nothing new. Since 1991 there have been, by my count, a total of 9 different pay-to-preview boxed sets (5 Basic Sets, 2 Basic Games, 2 4E Starter Sets, and 1 AD&D First Quest). The 8 previous pay-to-preview boxed sets have included DM screens, cards, counters, maps, posters, dice, miniatures, dice bags, audio CDs, solo adventures, pregenerated character sheets, map tiles, and more. They have, in short, done absolutely everything the new Starter Set is doing (and more).

And none of them have worked. They are, by design, forgettable products. And they have been forgotten.

These pay-to-preview boxed sets have also done absolutely everything the old red box set did, while failing to achieve similar rates of success. There are three possibilities:

(1) Frank Mentzer's cover was the key to success!
(2) Pay-to-preview is the wrong way to go.
(3) Marketing issues completely unrelated to the content of the game.

#1 seems unlikely, but if it's true then the new Starter Set is destined for greatness. Yay!

#3 may be the case. They may even be unresolvable marketing issues (it was a fad and its time is past). If so, the new Starter Set is essentially irrelevant. The real question is whether or not WotC's new marketing campaign will be successful, not whether or not the Essentials product line is less "daunting".

But every time another of these pay-to-preview sets fails to do what the boxed sets from 1974 thru 1991 did, I keep pointing back to #2 and thinking, "Maybe you should try doing the one thing you haven't done in 20 years. Just give it a shot. Put a little marketing muscle behind it. See what happens."

I see you're a proponent of the multi-boxed set format, and I don't have any evidence saying it wouldn't work- so I'm not going to claim it wouldn't.

I'm not, necessarily. Although I have become increasingly convinced that (a) your mainstream product should come in a box and look like other games; and (b) your mainstream product should be the game and not be a pay-to-preview ghetto that people are expected to leave as quickly as possible.

I think that making that boxed set affordable probably entails limiting the game to the heroic tier, but (a) I might be wrong about that and (b) you could just as easily make the Paragon and Epic tiers into hardcovers or softcovers or whatever.

But what are you basing your claims that "CLEARLY" this strategy is a poor one on?

Common sense.

If your goal is to clear up customer confusion over what they should be buying in order to play D&D, then you simply cannot achieve that goal by tripling the number of entry points into the game.

Further: The term "core rulebook" used to give a clear indication of "you should buy this to play". It was kind of esoteric and it wouldn't be immediately understandable to a neophyte looking at a wall o' books, but once you learned that "core rulebook" meant "this is what you need", you were in good shape.

By labeling every book they published as "core", WotC destroyed the usefulness of this term.

So along comes Essentials: The essential products you need to play D&D.

But if that was the purpose of the label, then they've degraded it straight out of the starting gate by applying it to 11 different products costing $240+.

Bill Slavicsek has a history of saying "I want to do X" and then doing something that achieves the exact opposite of that. The Essentials product line appears to be more of the same. It may be a huge success despite that; but it's certainly not going to clear up any consumer confusion.

 

[Scribble]

#3 may be the case. They may even be unresolvable marketing issues (it was a fad and its time is past). If so, the new Starter Set is essentially irrelevant. The real question is whether or not WotC's new marketing campaign will be successful, not whether or not the Essentials product line is less "daunting".

I think number 3 IS the key to things based on what we've seen. D&D was huge, it was a pop culture thing. In my opinion a lot of this didn't have anything to do with the rules.

But I don't agree that making it less "daunting" is not a key.

It seems to be completely ignoring the Evergreen aspect of essentials and the idea that they're actively informing stores that these ARE the D&D line. Everything else you don't need to keep on hand, or tell people to buy, but if someone wants into D&D these are the products to point them towards and these are the products to have on the shelf.

I do agree that advertising/marketing is also important. They also seem to be doing a LOT right now to get it back into the pop culture eye. (Whether it will work or not is debatable.)

But every time another of these pay-to-preview sets fails to do what the boxed sets from 1974 thru 1991 did, I keep pointing back to #2 and thinking, "Maybe you should try doing the one thing you haven't done in 20 years. Just give it a shot. Put a little marketing muscle behind it. See what happens."

It could very well work. Like I said I don't have the info to show it wouldn't.

All I know is that people who DO have marketing research have chosen to offer the product in the book form.

A starter boxed set as you describe would be redundant. Sure- if you sold the entire game differently then no it would not, but in it's current form, which they have chosen to present the game in, it is.

I'm not, necessarily. Although I have become increasingly convinced that (a) your mainstream product should come in a box and look like other games; and (b) your mainstream product should be the game and not be a pay-to-preview ghetto that people are expected to leave as quickly as possible.

Again based on?

I know you're saying the other boxed sets have failed to do what the red box did- sure... But do we have anything that tells us why? Any research done showing why people weren't interested before?

Without that- this is just a guess.

Again I have no research showing it wouldn't work, so I won't say it won't work.

Just seems your claiming something is a failure before it even starts, and based on guesswork.

Common sense.

If your goal is to clear up customer confusion over what they should be buying in order to play D&D, then you simply cannot achieve that goal by tripling the number of entry points into the game.

They're not really.

For all intents and purposes Essentials is the on-ramp into the game. Sure if you know a little more about games, you might see multiple entry points, but if you don't Essentials is being touted as what to tell people in your store is the entry point to D&D.

It's more then just printing books and saying have at ye.

Further: The term "core rulebook" used to give a clear indication of "you should buy this to play". It was kind of esoteric and it wouldn't be immediately understandable to a neophyte looking at a wall o' books, but once you learned that "core rulebook" meant "this is what you need", you were in good shape.

By labeling every book they published as "core", WotC destroyed the usefulness of this term.

So along comes Essentials: The essential products you need to play D&D.

But if that was the purpose of the label, then they've degraded it straight out of the starting gate by applying it to 11 different products costing $240+.

But you're also ignoring again that the Essentials concept isn't just a word on a book.

It's a strategy involving the store as well (These are the books you reccomend to potential new players these are the books you have at all times.)

Plus a roadmap on the books as well: On the back it outlines what someone needs to be a player, and what someone needs to be a DM.

It's a little more involved then you seem to be giving it credit for.

Again I have no real idea if it will work or not, but you seem to be overlooking a few things when discounting it as a "clear failure." That's all...

I think though that whatever the case it's not going to be a quick fix... It's not going to be ok everything is great now bam...

It's a slow re-structure that puts things into place.

 

[Maggan]

D&D was huge, it was a pop culture thing. In my opinion a lot of this didn't have anything to do with the rules.

I hold the following rant dear:

Jeffs Gameblog: Listen Up You Primitive Screwheads! (a rant)

It is my belief that the success of the mentzer red basic box was because it was released as a tidal wave of interest in the concept of rpgs erupted.

Not so much because it had 3 levels of play. Not so much because Elmore did the cover. Not so much because magic items resided in the DM booklet and so on so forth.

I base this belief on my observation of the development of the rpg hobby in Sweden. Here, D&D never was even a blip on the radar commercially, instead a Swedish BRP rpg took the crown, and was played by almost every single boy in Sweden during the 80's, from around 1984 to 1989.

And then interest largely died. And no amount of repackaging of basically the same content with the same covers rekindled the roaring flames.

/M

 

[BriarMonkey]

I think that the Essentials line has added to an already confusing situation. If you are a new gamer, and have decided to give D & D a go, you now have to do some research into what it is that you want purchase. Because the original 4E books are still on shelves, a neophyte has to weigh their purchase on either an assumption (or a guess) or rely on the store clerk (or on-line descriptions) to make the proper choice between the hardcovers and/or the Essentials line. In general, when someone buys a "game", research is hardly something that someone considers - it is normally a purchase and go option. And, if that first purchase is the wrong book, the confusion at that point can very abruptly end a potential new gamer's interest.

One can argue the case for labeling of books, but as we saw with the "core" label, anything can be manipulated by the marketing departments to try to drive up sales - which goes right back into the problem of what is and is not required. I have to admit I haven't a clear idea of a resolution, but with Essentials having broken down the original core books into several additional books smacks of a bad move if for no other reason than there are now more required elements.

Heck, even for my part with having been a gamer for some 30+ years, I gave up when Essentials was announced simply because I didn't want to figure out yet another set of books.

And as an aside, there were a couple of comments on the outlays for books by game groups and/or DMs. Myself, as a DM I tend to pick up a complete set of books for whatever game I am running. That way I can read through everything and have the references I need. On the other hand, my players generally only pick up the books that interest them. So dollar for dollar, as a DM I generally outspend them on rules, supplements, and accessories - but then, I also figured that was the norm since it is I that has to have the breadth to develop the game world.

Just my shekel for what it's worth.

 

[Maggan]

I think that the Essentials line has added to an already confusing situation. If you are a new gamer, and have decided to give D & D a go, you now have to do some research into what it is that you want purchase.

It's not like that research is the most grueling and harrowing experience on earth.

Basically it consists of:

1. I want to check out D&D!
2. Hey, there's a box that says "Starter Set". I guess that means I should start with that box.
3. Hey, look at this list here at the back of the starter set. It tells me what I need should I want to spend even more money on this!

Maybe a step 4 is sometimes considered:

4. Hey, those books also says D&D. But they're not starter books, and they don't seem to be essential to the game from the looks of it. I'll pass for now ... or I'll ask this guy behind the counter!

I think this is more complicated to some long time gamers than to people who are new to D&D, because those new to the game don't have a lot of preconceived ideas about what the game is, has been or should be.

/M

 

[Windjammer]

Your first question was this: "Has WotC succeeded to cut down on the product proliferation?" In layman's terms... has the release of new product resulted in less product on the shelves? Of course the answer is 'no'. It's not possible to release something new and have less than what you started with.

The complete question is whether WotC has reduced the number of products a beginner needs to begin D&D as a hobby. I think we're all agreed that the Red Box is not the hobby experience, but a teaser. The number of products you oughta buy after that teaser has been raised, compared to earlier editions (including 4.0).

Your second question was this: "Has WotC rectified the sometimes unclear labeling of products (e.g. Adventurers Vault 2 as a “core” rules book)?" In layman's terms... are things fixed so there are less things labeled "core" now on the shelves, and thus less likely to confuse people? And again... provided WotC didn't walk into every single store and put white-out stickers over each use of the word "core" on every hardcover book still on the shelves... of course the answer is 'no'. It's not feasible. You can't retroactively remove the word "core" from those other books to help "clear things up". The Essential products are right there next to the "core" Player's Handbook 1, 2, & 3.

Well, I wouldn't even debate that point. I agree that it was somewhat self-defeating of WotC to put more (and increasingly unclearly labelled) product on the 4E shelve to make it easier for beginners to know what they oughta pick. But hey, I wasn't the one who woke up one morning and thinking that would be a bright idea.

 

[Hussar]

But every time another of these pay-to-preview sets fails to do what the boxed sets from 1974 thru 1991 did, I keep pointing back to #2 and thinking, "Maybe you should try doing the one thing you haven't done in 20 years. Just give it a shot. Put a little marketing muscle behind it. See what happens."

Umm, what?

The Mentzer Basic set covered levels 1-3. To go any higher, to get any rules related to anything not in the dungeon, you had to buy something else - the Expert rules in this case. Then, if TSR had their way, you'd "graduate" to AD&D and have to buy non-compatible rules.

The Essentials starter set covers levels 1-3. To go any higher, you have to buy extra rules. And, you can go to the "advanced" game and still use your "basic" stuff with no compatiblity issues.

What did they do back then that they are not doing now?

BTW, totally minor nitpick - Mentzer was the writer, not the artist of the Red Box cover. Do you mean Elmore or Otis? I love the Otis covers personally, but, I totally know that's nostalgia talking.

 

[Obryn]

Isn't it thrilling to see that, no matter the question, the battle lines remain basically unmoving?

Anyway, if you assume that the average non-D&D player who's interested in the game but hasn't tried it isn't smart enough to (1) look at the back of the books to see what's needed, or (2) check websites for information, or (3) start with something called a "starter set" then yes, it's confusing.

I think these assumptions are pretty unfounded, however, and that your average person likely to get into the game is more than capable of figuring things out at least this far.

I get a sense that oftentimes, gamers don't respect the intelligence of non-gamers nearly enough.

-O

 

[Beginning of the End]

All I know is that people who DO have marketing research have chosen to offer the product in the book form.

Appeal to authority...

A starter boxed set as you describe would be redundant. Sure- if you sold the entire game differently then no it would not, but in it's current form, which they have chosen to present the game in, it is.

... and a naturalistic fallacy.

Ultimately if your premise is "this is the way WotC is doing it, so this is the way it should be done" then there's not really much of a discussion. WotC could have coated the Starter Set in feces and it would still be the right thing to do 'cause the people with the market research chose to do it that way and, since they did it that way, that's the way it is.

The Mentzer Basic set covered levels 1-3. To go any higher, to get any rules related to anything not in the dungeon, you had to buy something else - the Expert rules in this case. Then, if TSR had their way, you'd "graduate" to AD&D and have to buy non-compatible rules.

The Essentials starter set covers levels 1-3. To go any higher, you have to buy extra rules. And, you can go to the "advanced" game and still use your "basic" stuff with no compatiblity issues.

What did they do back then that they are not doing now?

You've had this explained to you in multiple threads now, but, sure, let's give it another whirl:

The distinction between a preview/demo and a core game which is supplemented by expansions is pretty obvious and clear-cut. Let's take a couple examples:

(1) Arkham Horror. You buy the core game. When you go to buy Dunwich Horror or King in Yellow, you don't simply discard Arkham Horror. Instead, those additional products contain expansions of the original ruleset which you use in conjunction with the original product. (Nor could you buy an expansion and simply skip buying Arkham Horror.)

This is clearly an expansion of the game, not a preview or a demo.

(2) Batman: Arkham Asylum. I download the demo to my PS3 and I play it until it's done. I decide I like the game based on the demo and I go out and buy the game. When I buy the full game, I can delete the demo off my PS3's hard drive. I don't need it to play the full version of the game.

Computer game demos are clearly previews. The full version of a computer game is not an expansion or supplement to the demo.

The distinction is pretty clear-cut: The Mentzer Basic Set followed scenario #1. The 4E Starter Set follows scenario #2.

AFAICT, no game outside of the roleplaying industry has ever tried to sell the demo the way that TSR & WotC have sold their pay-to-preview Basic/Starter games since 1991.

It's certainly possible that this "revolutionary" method has just taken 20 years to mature and is now primed to become a huge success. But I suspect it's more likely that "sell 'em the demo" is just a fundamentally flawed marketing strategy.

 

[Dice4Hire]

It is indeed unfortunate that all the main paroducts were not available at once. I could put the DM kit back a bit, personally, but more monsters really helps make the world some to life nad we staill have quite a wait for them.

I kow printing 4 things at once is not a good idea for WOTCm, but it is hard to play with what is out there right now. Nearly imp@ossible, I would say, if one is only sticking to essentials stuff.