D&D is now in (exceedingly awesome) commercial form

[Orius]

Gods! Is this for real?
Do WotC know we're in 2010?
This makes no sense nowadays. The aesthetics are awfully outdated and the music is so... 80s heavy metal

I understand that to old gamers and original red box gamers this is something orgasmically awesome, but come on, using this as the ad for the current 4th edition of D&D, published in 2008 is just pointless.

Yup, I've been thinking the same thing. I can't help but think this thing shrieks "uncool". The old art or whatever it is comes off as dorky to me, though that might be because I'm so used to being in an un-nerdy community that it has me very deep in the so-called "RPG closet". And while I've only seen the commercial with the sound off, I'm pretty sure kids today are not into metal at all.

Then again, if it's not aimed at teens it might not be a flop.

As for me, it's irrelevant. I've known about this thing for months thanks to ENWorld. I'm more interested in that Rule Compendium book they're supposed to be releasing later though.

But has anybody confirmed this is an actual WoTC ad? Has anybody actually seen this thing on Hulu, let alone old-fashioned TV?

I will also confirm that it's been making the rounds on Hulu. I've been seeing it over the last week or so on Stargate Universe and Firefly. I suppose they're running it over the Sci-Fi/Fantasy channel (makes senese). When the ad comes up, I click on the "Not Relevant" button, but I do that for all the ads. There's a rebellious part of me that doesn't want them to get any ad feedback at all because I feel it violates my privacy. It may have backfired a bit a few months ago when they "tailored" ads for feminine hygene products though.

Is it wrong that I recognised every one of the pictures?

Didn't you create some of that stuff originally?

 

[Hussar]

That's a mighty strong assumption. There are many factors that can keep a player from playing a game with as much of a time commitment as D&D. How many of us had a harder time finding game time as we became adults with jobs, spouses, mortgages, and kids? Some of us still find the time to play, yes, but plenty don't and I'm not about to say it's because they didn't really like the game.

But that's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is they didn't like the game enough.

That's should be pretty obvious. If they did like the game enough, they would prioritize to the point where they could play. We all do it. Anyone who has kids, a job, other hobbies, whatnot, has faced the choice - give up gaming or give up something else.

I'd say that you and I made the same choice - give up something else. Or, arrange our schedules so that gaming is a priority. I know I get mighty testy when my wife tries to schedule something during game time. I've blocked out that time and guarded it pretty strongly over the years.

The game, or the hobby if you will, is enough of a priority for me that I made that decision.

For someone who chose differently, who chose to give up gaming, obviously the priority was different. The game wasn't enough of a priority for them to stick with it.

So, again, if the rules from fifteen or twenty years ago weren't enough to keep gaming as a priority, why would they suddenly become good enough now? Someone who dropped the hobby during the hey days of the 80's has had the better part of twenty years to make gaming a priority again.

And, for all that time, there's been a basic set - either Mentzer or the original red box - waiting for them. And they didn't pick it up.

Now, the entry boxes in the 3e era were not particularly well done and I think everyone pretty much agrees with that. So, skip ahead to today.

Our lapsed gamer has been out of the hobby for fifteen or so years. He dropped the hobby because whatever he was doing at that time wasn't enough for him to make it a priority. So, again, why would bringing back something that failed to keep him in the hobby in the first place, suddenly bring him back to the hobby?

I know there is this sort of dream that people seem to have that if they build it, they will come. If we could just get enough people to see what's there, they'd come back. But, we've had, what, seven years of Osric? Several years of various retro-clones? And, none of them have managed to bring people back in significant numbers.

If there was this huge glut of lapsed gamers just waiting for the same old thing to roll back out again, why haven't they descended in droves onto several versions of OSR games? Going by WOTC's numbers, the number of lapsed gamers out there dwarfs the current gamers by a whole bunch.

Yet, despite any number of games that would certainly qualify as a rereleased Red Box (Basic Fantasy, a bag full of retro-clones, OSRIC (hell, that's FREE!), etc) we've yet to see a huge increase in the numbers of current gamers.

So, no, going back to the same well that's been dried up for over a decade is not the secret to success.

 

[Hussar]

The market research is pretty unequivocal: Very few people leave D&D because they stop liking it. The overwhelming majority leave because of lifestyle changes that separate them from their established group or make the RPG time commitment impractical: Changing or leaving school, moving, getting married, having children, etc.

That said, the broader point (that lapsed players are open to new mechanics) is quite valid; in my (anecdotal) experience, not a single lapsed player returning to the game was surprised or concerned about the fact that the game had evolved.

In hindsight, I see that my phrasing was unfortunate.

Let me be very clear. I'm not saying that people left the hobby because they stopped liking it.

I am saying that they left the hobby because they didn't like it enough to make it a priority.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Pick up any video game and tell me that RC.

Which video games have changed? Do you mean that I can pick up a video game now that has exactly the same title as one from 25 years ago, and it will be significantly different? I thought that they prominently changed the names (i.e., "Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time") in order to signify that it was a new game. I was also under the impression that the graphics were prominently changed in order to demonstrate the same thing. For example, I have never seen a game called "Pong" using images from earlier "Pong" being used to sell a radically new "Pong". Perhaps, though, I'm out of the loop on developments in Pong and Centipede.

The Basic set, whether Mentzer or the Red Box, couldn't keep people at the table. They just didn't do it. If they had, then why are there all these lapsed gamers?

Again, where is your evidence? What are you basing this on?

All of these "lapsed gamers" in the WotC polls include gamers who didn't move on from those games. The evidence you seem to be relying on might well be due to your point being 180 degrees backward.

Irrelevant. These people are still playing, so, obviously, they're not lapsed. However, the game failed to keep significant numbers, and that's what WOTC is trying to draw back in.

Again, the WotC survey is looking at "lapsed players" being "players not buying current WotC products" rather than "players no longer playing any version of D&D".

If this is what you are relying on, it doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means.

I'm going to stop you there for a moment.

If your main point is that the Red Box is more than an ad you pay for, I agree with you.

That's what sparked my comments- so... good?

Pretty much "great", I'd say. My overall impression is that the product is a good deal, on average, for the price point.

I just wish it was more clearly differentiated in its trade dress/advertising from the earlier Red Box.


RC

 

[Hussar]

Which video games have changed? Do you mean that I can pick up a video game now that has exactly the same title as one from 25 years ago, and it will be significantly different? I thought that they prominently changed the names (i.e., "Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time") in order to signify that it was a new game. I was also under the impression that the graphics were prominently changed in order to demonstrate the same thing. For example, I have never seen a game called "Pong" using images from earlier "Pong" being used to sell a radically new "Pong". Perhaps, though, I'm out of the loop on developments in Pong and Centipede.

Halo.

Starcraft.

Warcraft.

The various Ultima games.

Final Fantasy - compare FF1 to the current FF game - 12?

I'm not even much of a video gamer and even I know that games change pretty significantly between versions.

But, your point about Pong brings it right back. Why don't we get Pong games? When is the last time you saw Pong anywhere?

Is it because Pong is a bad game? No, of course not. It was a great game. Lots of fun. Space Invaders was huge at the time. But, we don't see it anymore.

So, despite the fact that people probably still like Pong or Space Invaders, the games died. They died because people didn't like them enough to keep them alive. Or, to put it another way, they liked other things more. Either way the end result is the same.

The games didn't hold people's interests enough for people to keep playing them. Not because they were bad or people hated them or anything like that. But just because, after so long, there are just other choices out there that are more appealing.

Again, where is your evidence? What are you basing this on?

Well, I'm basing this on the fact that TSR went up. If TSR had managed to retain their player base at 1982 levels, we'd still be playing 1e. After 1982 until 3e came along, D&D did nothing but bleed away players. Every year the number of gamers dropped, at least, that appears to be the conventional wisdom, until 3e managed to turn the bus around.

If the older games retained their players, why was the player base dropping every year?

 

[Nikosandros]

I'm more interested in that Rule Compendium book they're supposed to be releasing later though.

The Rules Compendium has been out for about a month and it is indeed a good book, even if you aren't especially interested in the rest of the Essentials line.

 

[Scribble]

Pretty much "great", I'd say. My overall impression is that the product is a good deal, on average, for the price point.

I just wish it was more clearly differentiated in its trade dress/advertising from the earlier Red Box.


RC

Well- to each his/her own man.

I personally love the look. It makes me happy.

I look at it and can't help but remember all the fun I've had/am still having with this game over the years.


But... to maybe calm your fears? From what I've heard the second printing will have new artwork on it and the new logo... This current form was done just for nostalgia/fun.

 

[Raven Crowking]

@ Scribble: I wouldn't call it "fears", but that's good news from where I sit. I think WotC is going in a much better direction now than they were when 4e was first announced.

@ Hussar: If you believe you have sufficient evidence for that claim, far be it from me to suggest that you rethink it. From where I'm sitting, your evidence is so extremely thin as to not count as evidenciary at all. To each his own, I suppose.


RC

 

[Mistwell]

Someone who dropped the hobby 25 years ago did so for a reason. If they really liked the game back then, would it not be fair to assume that they wouldn't have dropped it?

No. Of course that's not a fair assumption. There are tons of things in life I really like, but end up dropping for a variety of reasons. Particularly when that thing depends on at least 3 other people also being around and still liking it!

You could:

1) Get distracted by something else you also like;
2) Have other players or DM move away or loose interest;
3) Have a disagreement that results in a group breaking up;
4) Burn out temporarily on the game;
5) Temporarily not have the time or space for the game;
6) Lose the game books and not be able to replace them at the time;
7) Go through a phase which impacts your desire or ability to play the game;
8) Date someone who doesn't approve of the game, or who takes all your attention from the game;
etc..

There are tons of reasons to stop doing something you like. Heck, I stopped watching South Park for 3 years, forgot why, and went back to watching and enjoying it.

It's just not a good assumption to make.

The game wasn't good enough for them to stick with it, for whatever reason. So, if the game was the same as it was 25 years ago, why would it draw them back in?

In addition to all the reasons why it was a bad assumption that they didn't like it enough to begin with, this is also a bad assumption. Pretend for a moment that someone did burn out on it...that stuff tends to fade with time. Also, perhaps they don't want to play anymore, but they have enough nostalgia of all the good times they did have playing it at one time that they want to buy it for their kids or nephews or something?

To put it rather bluntly, the game didn't have enough draw to keep its customers. Why put out the same product in the hopes that somehow it will magically bring the customers back?

Because it's not magical, and there are hundreds of logical reasons why it would work to bring people to buy it again. In fact, it's slightly insulting to imply the people who disagree with you on this are assuming it's "magic" that will result in sales here.

You know, I don't buy licorice every week of my life. But I bought it sometimes as a kid, and I buy it sometimes as an adult. It's not magic. It's just changing tastes and moods and money and environment and many other factors.

 

[Scribble]

I think Hussar's claim is not true some of the time, and not not true some of the time.

Who cares why some old dude stopped buying something from a different company 20 years ago?

What's important is what that guy wants today, and probably even more importantly, what his kids want today.


So I think the real question would be: Would the original red box effectively generate interest in WoTC's current market?

I don't have any studies saying yes or no, but I presume WoTC has done their homework on who their target audience is, and what they want.