I mailed back my 3.5 D&D books for a refund today...

[Tiefling]

Isn' it just possible there is a better FLGS in your town (that takes refunds without the need for you to arrange for shipping the item and a delay in your refund), as opposed to all your game store hating? You act like the only possible reason to decide between one place to buy the books and another is a small discount.

Give it a rest, Mistwell.

 

[Li Shenron]

...actually, now that I think about it... in the group I DMed we were 7 and I was the only one who owned any D&D books. In the group where I am player, me & the DM are the only ones in 6. It could have been much worse than having books of different versions, but it has never been.

About shops refunding policies... I am glad to live in Finland.

 

[diaglo]

Wellll... I wouldn't go quite THAT far... Around here I might be able to dig you up some 2E players, but most of the ones I used to know have converted to Hackmaster... I'm not doubting they exist, I'm just questioning the notion that finding OD&D players might not present a certain level of challenge.

it was never Basic to me.

i've had an ad on many a message board for years now. and i can tell you from experience it ain't easy to find others.

 

[WSmith]

it was never Basic to me.

i've had an ad on many a message board for years now. and i can tell you from experience it ain't easy to find others.

Uh, it is easy to find them. It is just that we are never in driving distance of each other.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

For what it's worth I don't think any of us '3.5ers' care much one way or another which edition gets played.

3.0 was a good game, I like 3.5 slightly better, but only slightly. (With the exception of the Monster Manual, which is now a usable book.)

What I am personally objecting to is the assumption that by returning them he was declaring some sort of half arsed victory.

His second post continued the theme.

From this point I am ignoring this thread, so agree or disagree, there are better things to talk about. Like: Has Sorcery and Steam come out yet?

The Auld Grump

 

[Drawmack]

it was never Basic to me.

i've had an ad on many a message board for years now. and i can tell you from experience it ain't easy to find others.

I'll play with ya D

.
.
.
.
.

oh wait a minute this is DnD we're talking about. I thought we were on that other message board sorry.

Seriously though in my area there are some 2e groups but those are all long time friends who've played together for years. You can't find anything but 3/3.5e looking for players

 

[DaveMage]

Actually, no, they really didn't. As much as I would like to pretend that this move wasn't financially prudent, it really was.

First off, it is well known that core book sales are the brass ring of the D&D market. Supplements, adventures, etc., do not compare.

WotC already sold near as many copies of the core as they were going to sell, barring the occasional replacement or new entry. So, sales of core books probably had slowed to a trickle. To rejuvinate these sales, they had to produce new books that had markedly different material, or people wouldn't buy them.

Further, owing to the structure of the d20 license, d20 product sales help drive core book sales. So, by making the core book more different than was expedient for the needs of the adience, they also create the situation where the new d20 books based on the SRD are different enough that the existing books are not sufficient to use the existing supplements. So by making the books more different, they help drive the sales of the new books indirectly.

This is good for WotC and good for d20 publishers. For the audience, on the other hand, the situation is less than optimal. But that's the nature of the hobby. By their very nature, RPGs are low maintenance, so you have to expect that the businesses that stand to benefit from it are going to try to change that situation to drive more sales.

If your argument is correct, Psion, then one must conclude that a 3-year update cycle is what we should expect in the future.

I hope you're wrong (but you very well could be right). Three years is too soon for me on a regular basis.

 

[jasamcarl]

Actually, no, they really didn't. As much as I would like to pretend that this move wasn't financially prudent, it really was.

First off, it is well known that core book sales are the brass ring of the D&D market. Supplements, adventures, etc., do not compare.

WotC already sold near as many copies of the core as they were going to sell, barring the occasional replacement or new entry. So, sales of core books probably had slowed to a trickle. To rejuvinate these sales, they had to produce new books that had markedly different material, or people wouldn't buy them.

Further, owing to the structure of the d20 license, d20 product sales help drive core book sales. So, by making the core book more different than was expedient for the needs of the adience, they also create the situation where the new d20 books based on the SRD are different enough that the existing books are not sufficient to use the existing supplements. So by making the books more different, they help drive the sales of the new books indirectly.

This is good for WotC and good for d20 publishers. For the audience, on the other hand, the situation is less than optimal. But that's the nature of the hobby. By their very nature, RPGs are low maintenance, so you have to expect that the businesses that stand to benefit from it are going to try to change that situation to drive more sales.

Fair enough on the producer end, but i'm not convinced that this move hurts the plurality of consumers. As you said, new editions are a standard in the hobby. Now, one would suspect that consumers know that eventually that they will face a new edition, so 3.5 sales are made in the context that a 4.0 is inevitable; what makes think that there will be more supplements made in the future for 3.5 than for 3.0? What incentive is there to buy into it if they expect to purchase roughly the same number of supps. My answer would be the quality of the new product. But there probably are a number of network effects as well, such as expectation of finding new players; I think though that the idea of suppliment driven network is overblown.

I freely admit this is based on the assumption that consumers are rational and forward thinking, and discounts the possibility simply like buying things that are new, but in that context noone is harmed by this.

 

[WayneLigon]

Seeing the 'NO REFUNDS' sign is often exibit 'a' of such a place. Some game stores have been becoming more forgiving in the refunds department of recent

Most game stores can't afford to. A chain bookstore will accept returns because they'll get credit back from the publisher (save for 'non-returnable' items, like some special orders, etc; depends on the agreement with the publisher). Every game store (indeed, most specialty stores, like comic shops) I've ever dealt with never made refunds unless it was an obvious reason not to keep the game (ie, get the game home, find out it's printed upside down, or someone has crushed a bug in it, etc).

The reason is that the game store owner can't ship it back to the company for a refund. (WOTC may be different, being so big, but I personally do not know; I suspect not). So he's stuck with having paid for the book. If it was in good condition, and it was something like the 3.5 manuals, then they might make an exception since it's very likely they will be able to sell them again.

But most have been burned by Gamer X that orders $50.00 worth of special-order stuff then decides he doesn't want them. That's where you get those copies of Lords of Creation that have been gathering dust for the past God knows how many years.

 

[Enceladus]

Man-Oh-Man...

You guys just do not know how NOT to feed the trolls.

It seems that any post with content and clarity (I can point to some if you like) is completely ignored in favor of trollish crap like this thread.

Of course I'm posting in it so it......

<sigh>