DDM & 4ed

[Dannyalcatraz]

There were a lot of threads discussing the demise of DDM in its 4Ed incarnation, but there was, for me at least, one aspect that I don't recall seeing- the distribution of minis based on PC races.

D&D 4Ed introduced a several new PC races, and brought to the fore some that had lurked in the periphery for a while.

However, the DDM sets typically included few minis of the new 4Ed PC races...and they tended to be scarce. Instead, we saw lots of Elves, Humans and the like, for which there are innumerable substitutes in the market if your goal was to use the minis in your RPG campaign (instead of or in addition to use in DDM).

So, the question is:

All other issues aside, would you have bought more DDM if there had been more of the new/newly emphasized 4Ed races, either for use in DDM itself or for use in your FRPG campaign of choice?

 

[Steel_Wind]

No. Probably not. The older PC race minis of which I have a lot of?

Those are the ones I have because those are the ones I use.

The things I wanted more of? That would be assorted monsters of an astonishing variety in unreasonably large numbers. I like to collect critters by the 6, 10, or 20.

I find that sort of selection of a given monster allows me to use them in just about any way I want in a game session. Expensive? Yes. But you asked - so I'm answering.

The things I want? For the most part -- those are things that WotC has already released in the past seven years.

Result: I'm a customer of either:

A. Retail booster products WotC sold three to five years ago which are still in the retail channel; or,
B. Single minis in the secondary market, again, sold by WotC in years past.

Either way, I'm buying something that WotC has already sold, for the most part. They aren't achieving a "new" sale with me and DDM.

If WotC had not flooded the market with this stuff, it wouldn't exist in the numbers that it does for me to buy and I would have to buy NEW stuff from WotC. But they did, and it does -- and there are no mulligans when it comes to releasing manufactured goods into the market. They last a long, long, long time.

So the only way WotC is going to sell me on a new version of a product they already made -- which I already rather like -- is to provide me a superior version of it at a cheaper, or at least, a competitive, cost.

Near as I can tell, that hasn't happened and isn't likely to anytime soon, either.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Would not have influenced me, as I am not a consumer or supporter of minis.

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

No. But it's because I think random distribution is an incredibly cynical way to sell a requirement for a game.

4E all but requires a 1" grid and something to represent every participant once combat ensues.

The analogy is perhaps overused, but is apt. It's like having to pay for random packs of Monopoly money and Community Chest and Chance cards after you've already purchased the board and rules. Or having to buy individual Scrabble tiles, hoping you'll pull that 'e' that makes a full and standard set after you have already purchased the box that came with 4 racks, a bag, a board, and the rules. It's stupid and insulting.

Nothing could have saved DDM once the decision was made to make it do double duty as a collectible, tactical miniatures game as well as the primary source for monster and PC tokens for the RPG. It might have survived if a commitment was made to make that game the best it could be while providing an alternative for everyone playing 4E . (I've long been an advocate for cardboard tokens, preferably stand-up with to-scale bases and with 1st-Pary MM art. See the first D&D Encounters pack-ins for this done to a minimum, and the new Warhammer Fantasy RPG for it done just about right.)

Seeing the sculpts repurposed as pack-ins for the Heroquest board game now is so sad.

 

[Kafen]

Seeing the sculpts repurposed as pack-ins for the Heroquest board game now is so sad.

Tis true, the Heroscape bases are way more stable, though. They do not bend. They rock if you can get them on sale, too.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Perhaps I wasn't clear when I said "All other issues aside..."

By that I meant that the DDM collectible minis business model, sculpt quality, material quality and all of DDM's other flaws (perceived or real) are immaterial.

And if you don't buy minis at all, this isn't the thread for you, since this is precisely about the decision making process for buying or not buying minis.

My question is about the sets' contents.

To rephrase for clarity:

Was the distribution of atypical (i.e. non-Dwarf, Elf, Human, etc.) "PC race" minis in DDM OK, or would you rather the sets included more Dragonborn, Tieflings, Shardminds, Wildren, Goliaths, Changelings, Devas, Shifters and Warforged?

 

[MerricB]

Honestly, I don't think that had much of an impact. There were other decisions which were far more dubious - such as placing repainted minis in the hero packs rather than new sculpts.

I've always approached the D&D Minis line as a way of getting monsters, with the PCs as a nice addition.

The fully randomized (plus PCs) line didn't last long beyond the release of 4e... soon it was the randomized + visible monster packs and the non-randomized hero packs.

Cheers!

 

[doctorhook]

No. But it's because I think random distribution is an incredibly cynical way to sell a requirement for a game.

4E all but requires a 1" grid and something to represent every participant once combat ensues.

The analogy is perhaps overused, but is apt. It's like having to pay for random packs of Monopoly money and Community Chest and Chance cards after you've already purchased the board and rules. Or having to buy individual Scrabble tiles, hoping you'll pull that 'e' that makes a full and standard set after you have already purchased the box that came with 4 racks, a bag, a board, and the rules. It's stupid and insulting.

Nothing could have saved DDM once the decision was made to make it do double duty as a collectible, tactical miniatures game as well as the primary source for monster and PC tokens for the RPG. It might have survived if a commitment was made to make that game the best it could be while providing an alternative for everyone playing 4E . (I've long been an advocate for cardboard tokens, preferably stand-up with to-scale bases and with 1st-Pary MM art. See the first D&D Encounters pack-ins for this done to a minimum, and the new Warhammer Fantasy RPG for it done just about right.)

Seeing the sculpts repurposed as pack-ins for the Heroquest board game now is so sad.

Respectfully, I think DDM only seems cynical because you're looking at it cynically. To call it "stupid and insulting" is unnecessarily harsh.

Let's be honest: even though DDM has been the "officially supported" token-type for D&D, it wasn't the only option; players could easily have used another brand of minis, or homemade tokens, or LEGOs, or even simple coins or candy. In this way, DDM products were never truly a "requirement" for D&D, except for perhaps the few most extremely naive players -- the average player realised that buying WotC's random packs of minis wasn't truly necessary to play the game.

As for the "demise" of DDM, the real problem has been twofold:

• 1.) The rising cost of minis relative to the average gamer's income during this recession. Remember that DDM is an American product line launched in 2003; until 2008, sales were strong because the American economy was strong.
• 2.) DDM has saturated its own market. More than 1200 unique sculpts have been released as a part of the DDM line. The minis are popular, ubiquitous, and durable, and because of this, the secondary market has flooded with resellers vending individual minis. Consequently, new DDM sets from WotC are competing against older DDM minis from resellers.

Finally, regarding Heroscape: Think of it as attracting new players to the game. Consider Heroscape a "gateway game". This hobby needs to constantly attract new players in order to grow.

 

[doctorhook]

All other issues aside, would you have bought more DDM if there had been more of the new/newly emphasized 4Ed races, either for use in DDM itself or for use in your FRPG campaign of choice?

No, I don't think so. I used to buy a lot of DDM products, but mostly for the monsters.

I think buying randomised, premade minis for PCs is pretty problematic. I already owned probably near 100 different Elf or Human sculpts, and yet it was still possible for an Elf or Human character in my party to lack totally suitable representation. Gender was often an issue, as was the minis' primary equipment choices; often a player would have to settle for a mini that used a sword as a character who used an axe. Petty stuff, usually. Of course, these problems were even more common for exotic character races. All in all, the whole exercise of "finding the right mini" always seemed pretty pointless anyway.

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

Was the distribution of atypical (i.e. non-Dwarf, Elf, Human, etc.) "PC race" minis in DDM OK, or would you rather the sets included more Dragonborn, Tieflings, Shardminds, Wildren, Goliaths, Changelings, Devas, Shifters and Warforged?

I don't think "sets" should have been used the way they were at all.

And having the only two dragonborn minis be rare and released two months (if I recall) after the game was released, six months after they were spoiled as PHB1 races, is very much not OK.

Those little pieces of plastic still go for $20-$30 a piece on the rare occasions they come up for auction on eBay.