DDM & 4ed

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

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

I appreciate your respectful tone.

And I think you're right. It was probably either cynical or stupid, but not both. Either way I was and am insulted. (Though "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity", right?)

I call it cynical, because--IMHO--to sell essential components of a game in such a random fashion presupposes the people to whom you are selling it are stupid enough to buy it.

If it wasn't a cynical sales strategy, it was stupid because what they did not only killed (or at best did not save) what was once a profitable product line but fostered contempt and distrust of the company in consumers of another of their product lines.

 

[humble minion]

Quick answer - no, because my group still plays 3.5 and the 4e PC races would be of no use to us. In fact, it more likely would have put me off, since every dragonborn or shardmind or whatever is yet another useless (to me) miniature that'll get thrown in the 'jeez I hope I can trade this away one day' box, which, given the vagaries of random distribution, is plenty full enough of valueless common figures as it is.

As others have said, I don't buy as many DDM as I used to (or indeed any at all for quite a while) but it's nothing to do with 4e support. Factors like decreasing quality, increasing cost, and the inevitable increasing duplication of subjects that I've already got dozens of had much more to do with it.

 

[Jdvn1]

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

That's my experience, too. Finding a mini to fit your character is hard enough with having to sift through randomized boxes.

 

[doctorhook]

I appreciate your respectful tone.

And I think you're right. It was probably either cynical or stupid, but not both. Either way I was and am insulted. (Though "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity", right?)

I call it cynical, because--IMHO--to sell essential components of a game in such a random fashion presupposes the people to whom you are selling it are stupid enough to buy it.

If it wasn't a cynical sales strategy, it was stupid because what they did not only killed (or at best did not save) what was once a profitable product line but fostered contempt and distrust of the company in consumers of another of their product lines.

And I appreciate your respectful reply!

Anyway, you're not wrong; there are legitimate gripes to be made about DDM. For example, speaking as a fan and former collector, I can say from experience that you can very easily just keep throwing money at your collection and still never, ever have enough of the minis you want or need for your game. There's just too many varieties of creatures and characters in D&D, and who appear in such volume, but which also appear so briefly and so infrequently, that it becomes extremely difficult to justify buying every mini you'll ever need. It would often cost me $20 to equip my collection with the ideal minis for a single encounter, and it certainly was stupid of me to pay that price for something I'd get so little use out of.

 

[Sammael]

To those who joined DDM collecting at a later date, you need to understand the Merric's Law of Miniatures (see Merric's sig, above):

Merric's Law of Miniatures: Non-Random Packaging, Cheap Prices, and a Large Range of Figures: Choose two.

DDM could have been cheap and non-random, but then, it wouldn't have the absolutely enormous range of figures which was one of its most awesome features (Reaper's pre-painted minis are non-random and relatively cheap, but the range is pathetically small; Rackham has a fairly wide range of non-random minis, but they are very expensive).

DDM was doing great during its heyday: it was bought and enjoyed by all three (overlapping) target categories - role-players, skirmishers, and collectors. The fact that it was cheap made its randomness irrelevant - who cares if what you get is random, when $10 nets you eight minis? Harbinger, Dragoneye, Archfiends, Giants of Legend - all these sets sold like hotcakes. And then things started going downhill... first, prices went up (this actually happened while Archfiends was still on the shelves, but most retailers kept the old prices). Then quality started going down (with War Drums). Then prices went up again. Then we got the failed experiment of Dreamblade (which WotC devoted a ridiculous amount of R&D time and resources to). Then Skirmish got rebooted to 2.0 (which was not well received). Then the 4eification of creature designs began. Then Skirmish got killed, prices went up again, quality hit rock bottom with Dungeons of Dread... and it's a miracle that the line is still alive as it is.

I don't think the lack of 4E PC races in DDM killed the line, but it was one of the many, many factors that contributed to its decline.

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

it's a miracle that the line is still alive as it is.

Uh, hate to break it to you, but "It's dead, Jim".

I'll believe the BS from XP10 when I see it.

 

[Sammael]

Uh, hate to break it to you, but "It's dead, Jim".

I'll believe the BS from XP10 when I see it.

If you go to DDMSpoilers, you'll see that the June 2010 Game Trade Magazine disagrees with you. Lords of Madness is slated for August 2010 release.

Box art doesn't look promising, though.

 

[Stormonu]

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 play 4E, so no.

However, as an aside - based on what was actually put out, I never bought them; I generally didn't like the mix of characters, price or quality. For PCs minis I generally prefer to buy metal minis that are as close to the character as I can get and paint them.

I generally use the plastics for all opponents and monsters, though.

--------------------------

Now if WotC had made "player packs" that included a deck of power cards, 3 minis (heroic version, paragon version, epic version) and a card-sized "combat sheet" to hold all your combat-relevant stats, I'd been more inclined to buy into it if I'd continued playing 4E.

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

If you go to DDMSpoilers, you'll see that the June 2010 Game Trade Magazine disagrees with you. Lords of Madness is slated for August 2010 release.

Box art doesn't look promising, though.

I'll believe it when I see it.

I just don't see how this makes sense from a strategy or profit perspective at this point. The DDM game would need a complete re-relaunch at this point, fully separating it from 4E, especially since it has been made clear cardboard tokens will be widespread following the release of the Essentials line.

Also: $22 for six minis? Are you ing kidding me?

 

[Dausuul]

No, it would not have affected my purchasing decisions. I hate dragonborn; I like tieflings but not WotC's portrayal of them (tails? really?); and I'm not fond of the wackier races that came out later.

But then, I never buy booster packs of minis except for the occasional impulse buy (which typically amounts to 1-2 packs in a 6-month period). Everything else I buy on the secondary market, and always have.