D&D General Dungeons & Dragons Encyclopedia - new product

[Dire Bare]

Then they should have put "first time in an encyclopedia" in their promo, instead of "for the first time ever in an official title."

You should write a strongly worded letter. "Your marketing is WRONG!"

 

[Parmandur]

Seems to me that you've added a qualifier ("as a reference book") that isn't in the description:

"For the first time ever in an official title, Wizards of the Coast has brought together more than half a dozen of its legendary settings - stretching all the way back to Greyhawk - to showcase the elements that make them unique, and Dungeons & Dragons the most diverse, exciting and unpredictable game in the world."

Given that there have previously been (like I already mentioned) official titles which bring together more than half a dozen settings and showcased the elements that make them unique, I'm not sure why you're so intent on moving the goalposts on WotC's behalf. They didn't carve out an exception for art books or encyclopedias, so perhaps you could share on why you think that's somehow implied?

Worlds & Relam is an art book with narrative bits. This is totally different. Can you name a similar reference work from either WotC or TSR, specifically....?

It's less that I am dead set on it and more amused at the complaint.

 

[Alzrius]

You should write a strongly worded letter. "Your marketing is WRONG!"

I'd rather post an open letter about why some people feel the need to defend laughably bad marketing.

 

[Alzrius]

Worlds & Relam is an art book with narrative bits. This is totally different.

So you don't think it's an "official product" but this one is? That's a...take.

Can you name a similar reference work from either WotC or TSR, specifically....?

You still have you to explain how you think it's "totally different" to the point of not being an "official product." Why are you not able to do that?

It's less that I am dead set on it and more amused at the complaint.

I'm more amused at the idea that "official product" is now understood to mean "but not art books."

 

[Parmandur]

I'd rather post an open letter about why some people feel the need to defend laughably bad marketing.

It does not really need defending, I'm pretty sure close to nobody will care?

But...what other similar reference text has TSR or WotC ever made? Specifically...?

 

[Alzrius]

It does not really n Ed defending, I'm pretty sure close to nobody will care?

And yet you're going out of your way to defend them by saying that "official title" means "does not not include art books." It's a bold strategy, but it's not playing out for you.

But...what other similar reference text has TSR or WotC ever made? Specifically...?

First you need to justify changing "official title" to "reference text," which is key your argument and yet you have so far failed to do.

 

[Parmandur]

And yet you're going out of your way to defend them by saying that "official title" means "does not not include art books." It's a bold strategy, but it's not playing out for you.

Seems to be laying out fine to me. You have not addressed the point, which is fascinating.

First you need to justify changing "official title" to "reference text," which is key your argument and yet you have so far failed to do.

So you admit that you cannot think of a similar reference text, and that I am correct. Thank you for your attention in this matter.

 

[Alzrius]

Seems to be laying out fine to me. You have not addressed the point, which is fascinating.

It's notable that you say "seems" here, which is an acknowledgement that it's not actually playing out for you. It doesn't detract how you can't specify how "official title" somehow implies that art books don't count, though.

So you admit that you cannot think of a similar reference text, and that I am correct. Thank you for your attention in this matter.

I don't need to think of a similar reference text, because I don't grant your premise that "official title" doesn't include art books. Given that you have yet to justify that exception, I'll take this as your admission that you can't. Your concession in this matter is appreciated.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't need to think of a similar reference text

You don't need to, or you can't and don't want to admit as such?

I would be fascinated if there were, but near as I can tell this is accurately stating that it is a first as a cross-Setting detailed reference encyclopedia. So the ad copy is slightly sloppy and peppy, so what? It is accurate to say that it is a first.

 

[Alzrius]

You don't need to, or you can't and don't want to d it as much?

Definitely the first one, since you still haven't specified how art books aren't "official titles" yet. Don't worry, I'll wait for you to do so.

I would be fascinated if there were, but near as I can tell this is accurately stating that it is a first as a cross-Setting detailed reference encyclopedia.

Really? What part of this...

"For the first time ever in an official title, Wizards of the Coast has brought together more than half a dozen of its legendary settings - stretching all the way back to Greyhawk - to showcase the elements that make them unique, and Dungeons & Dragons the most diverse, exciting and unpredictable game in the world."

...specifies a reference encyclopedia?

So the ad copy is slightly sloppy and peppy, so what? It is accurate to say that it is a first.

Except, of course, that it's not accurate due to it not being the first such official title.