D&D 4E Hasbro, Greyhawk, and 4E speculation

[mearls]

Chill, Mike. I agree with you. I was just poking fun. Cross-marketing is a net bonus for the brand and it would be stupid for them not to port good rules between them.

Sorry! The entire "D&D minis dictates D&D RPG stuff" is a topic that gets me all riled up.

 

[rgard]

Don't make me laugh. I can't speak for all the posters around here, but I'm not this gullible.

There's nothing you can say that'll convience me that D&D v3.5 and all its new terms like 'squares' for movement and other details on terrain and diagonal moves WASN'T included to prod (require?) gamers to buy D&D's new miniatures. I would argue that it is near impossible to run a D&D v.3.5 combat WITHOUT minis.

FLGS perspective here: We have folks run 3.5e campaigns in the store. Some use minis, some don't. Use or lack of use of minis doesn't seem to impact the players' enjoyment at all.

Personally, just personally, I've always preferred using minis in the game. We were using them back in 1979.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Falstaff]

FLGS perspective here: We have folks run 3.5e campaigns in the store. Some use minis, some don't. Use or lack of use of minis doesn't seem to impact the players' enjoyment at all.

Personally, just personally, I've always preferred using minis in the game. We were using them back in 1979.

Thanks,
Rich

Yeah, I've seen groups try to play D&D without minis. But, it is nearly impossible to determine when an attack of opportunity takes place without a battle map and minis.

I should add that I love using minis and I like the D&D line of minis. I just want Mearls to know that I'm not gullible enough to believe that the new version of D&D had nothing to do with forcing people to buy the new mini line.

 

[rgard]

Evidence please, Mr. Mearls. <SNIP> What I have seen so far hasn't substansively changed my understanding.

Prove a negative? C'mon.

Edit: oops, posted my question before I read Mike's post. Sorry.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Let's assume there really is a constant churning of books just to keep cash coming in. Eventually, people would get sick of it or you'd run out of ideas. That would be a darn good time to announce the triumphant return of Dark Sun or Planescape -- updated for 3.5 of course. And TSR should have easily taught us the perils of having too many irons in the fire at once.

This makes a lot of sense to me.

The other thing I was thinking about selling the rights to IP is that if a purchasing company has wild success with the property, the sellers look like fools, and if the purchasing company does a complete hack job, it may reflect negatively on the sellers.

If you want a counter to your points, I would say that I don't see how licensing the videogame rights to D&D for 10 years means D&D is up for sale. It seems likely to me that, if Hasbro wanted to sell D&D, they'd make more money if they owned all the rights and could sell them along with the rest of D&D.

Another excellent point.

 

[GVDammerung]

Sorry! The entire "D&D minis dictates D&D RPG stuff" is a topic that gets me all riled up.

I find this fascinating, particularly imagining why this would be so aggitating. Doubtless idle speculation. The Minatures Handbook and some of the 3x rules certainly seem to suggest, however, more than a passing nod between minis and the RPG.

 

[rgard]

Yeah, I've seen groups try to play D&D without minis. But, it is nearly impossible to determine when an attack of opportunity takes place without a battle map and minis.

I should add that I love using minis and I like the D&D line of minis. I just want Mearls to know that I'm not gullible enough to believe that the new version of D&D had nothing to do with forcing people to buy the new mini line.

The DM in question does ok with the AoO rule, but that said, the AoO was always part of our home rules in 1e.

Some more from the FLGS perspective:

1. My most frequent buyer of D&D minis is a gentleman who DMs a 1E campaign. He and his group play lots of RPGs, but when it comes to D&D they've stuck with 1E. They like the iconic value of having trolls that look like the trolls from the 1E illustrations.

2. Most of the D&D players who frequent the store tend to use non-WotC, specifcally Reaper, minis for their PCs. The DMs who use minis tend to use the WotC D&D minis for their NPCs and monsters.

3. If anything, the D&D minis line draws people to the RPG as much as the reverse. I've had Mageknight and Warhammer players see other customers playing the D&D minis game in the store then buy the D&D minis game. Several have gone on to buy the 3 D&D core rule books and get into RPGing.

Yes, I know the above may not be representative of gamers overall and is just the reality of my customer base right now.

I think possibly my perspective is skewed by the fact that I've always used minis when playing D&D from OD&D through 3.5e. Personally, I really like that the D&D RPG now incorporates rules for using the tactical maps and figures. Just seemed like a natural progression of the game to me. Just as we had an AoO rule in 1979 and used minis then too.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Storm Raven]

People will buy things that are losing money.

They will rarely spend $30-35 million for such things.

Something can have inherent value while still generating a loss,

Nothing has inherent value.

and there are too many examples of how a property can be made better than ever (even though it was losing money), to be worth my time to explain.

That's not an example of an unprofitable property though. That's an example of a property that is not being used properly.

 

[Aaron L]

I would argue that it is near impossible to run a D&D v.3.5 combat WITHOUT minis.

We've never used minis for any 3.5 game.

 

[Falstaff]

The DM in question does ok with the AoO rule, but that said, the AoO was always part of our home rules in 1e.

Some more from the FLGS perspective:

1. My most frequent buyer of D&D minis is a gentleman who DMs a 1E campaign. He and his group play lots of RPGs, but when it comes to D&D they've stuck with 1E. They like the iconic value of having trolls that look like the trolls from the 1E illustrations.

2. Most of the D&D players who frequent the store tend to use non-WotC, specifcally Reaper, minis for their PCs. The DMs who use minis tend to use the WotC D&D minis for their NPCs and monsters.

3. If anything, the D&D minis line draws people to the RPG as much as the reverse. I've had Mageknight and Warhammer players see other customers playing the D&D minis game in the store then buy the D&D minis game. Several have gone on to buy the 3 D&D core rule books and get into RPGing.

Yes, I know the above may not be representative of gamers overall and is just the reality of my customer base right now.

I think possibly my perspective is skewed by the fact that I've always used minis when playing D&D from OD&D through 3.5e. Personally, I really like that the D&D RPG now incorporates rules for using the tactical maps and figures. Just seemed like a natural progression of the game to me. Just as we had an AoO rule in 1979 and used minis then too.

Thanks,
Rich

Rich,

Thanks for the examples and perspectives.

I, too, have been gaming a very long time. I'm 34 now and I started gaming when I was 9 years old. OD&D and Star Frontiers! yay.

Anyway, most of my years of gaming, mainly through Advanced and 2nd edition, I never used minis. I had many players that wanted to use them (since they'd painted so damn many of them), but when I DM'ed (which was almost all of the time) I never used them. I always wanted my players to imagine everything instead of stare at the table.

But, with the 3.5 version of D&D, I really like using the minis.

Oh wait, I just noticed that my post has absolutely nothing to do with this thread's topic. Sorry about that.