Marketing criticisms miss the point

[Tetsubo]

If you change the structure of a gaming system enough, it ceases to be the original game any longer. That is what has happened here. 4E may have the title "D&D" on its cover, but that doesn't make it D&D.

An old joke I once heard, done by a comedian claiming to own the axe that George Washington used to cut down the famous cherry tree:

"This here is the axe that George Washington used to chop down that cherry tree with. *pause* Of course I had to replace the handle. *pause* And I had to replace the head after it got rusty. *pause* BUT it occupies the same SPACE as the original axe."

That is 4E right there. After having replaced the entire system, it occupies the same space as D&D. But that doesn't make it D&D.

Vote with your dollars.

 

[xechnao]

If you change the structure of a gaming system enough, it ceases to be the original game any longer. That is what has happened here. 4E may have the title "D&D" on its cover, but that doesn't make it D&D.

An old joke I once heard, done by a comedian claiming to own the axe that George Washington used to cut down the famous cherry tree:

"This here is the axe that George Washington used to chop down that cherry tree with. *pause* Of course I had to replace the handle. *pause* And I had to replace the head after it got rusty. *pause* BUT it occupies the same SPACE as the original axe."

That is 4E right there. After having replaced the entire system, it occupies the same space as D&D. But that doesn't make it D&D.

Vote with your dollars.

What you are saying here is, besides those who really like the 4e rpg more than anything else, not to buy 4e. Why so? Why should we have only one type of representative of whatever we are dealing with?
Besides, since 4e seems to be the main trend because of official brand support you realize that eventually with your behavior you build more support for 4e than you want to I guess. That is have the contrary effect of what you want.
What you should do instead of seemingly ranting is provide alternatives to 4e you like -comparing with it or even not. Do you get this?

 

[Drkfathr1]

I think that ultimately, the biggest measure we'll have of the marketing success (or lack thereof) will be how many NEW players are brought into the market.

Hasn't that been the primary focus of WOTC for the last few years? Bringing new blood into the hobby?

If a significant number of new hobbyists are born with this edition, it will no doubt be a success.

If however, no significant numbers of NEW players are brought in, we're just right back at the status quo. Any new release is going to generate big numbers and big sales initially...but what about 6 months to a year from now?

Also, another important point to keep in mind: if a significant number of NEW players are brought in...but a significant number of old players are not...still a failure.

 

[billd91]

These are the words of a man who doesn't understand the concept of "brand." The popularity of D&D is not, was not, and never will be due to game mechanics.

The reason people don't want to try Ars Magica, Pendragon, or Feng Shui isn't because those games use different systems. It's because those games aren't called "Dungeons & Dragons." If 4E had the exact same game mechanics as Pendragon--exact same--it'd blow Pendragon out of the water and be a huge success.

4E is a success because of the words in front of 4E: "Dungeons & Dragons." It's the new edition, everyone will buy it, and we'll come to love it.

Of this, I have many doubts but I would have to dig into unavailable sales info to be sure. But my question would be: how well did the Players Option books sell? They were, in essence, D&D 2.5. The purchase of Skills and Powers quickly disabused me of the notion that the rest were worth picking up. I'd be interested in learning how many other people purchasing the books felt the same way.

D&D has far greater market penetration than any other RPG. That's without a doubt, and that alone will generate some sales, at least initially. But how sustained will it be? That would depend on how well it plays and that depends on the system.

Changing systems will also have an effect on sales, even for people normally interested in the brand. How much depends on how big the changes are and how much time people feel they have to learn a new one. Without a doubt, there will be people sticking with 3/3.5 who don't want to have to learn the changes to 4e. The brand name doesn't win in every case.

 

[Zil]

There may be 150,000 gamers on the RPGA mailing list, but 15,000 probably represents the maximum current size of the "core" RPGA audience you're speaking of. A lot of those people are casual players who may have polished off their two slots at a single game day, so if you trim a bit of fat you're at about 10,000 members. Or so.

I was wondering about that. Who counts as being an RPGA member? I know I have one of their little cards, and I have participated in an RPGA tournament game or two, but not for a few years now. Am I counted in those numbers? I personally wouldn't count myself, but I'm surely on a list somewhere.

 

[xechnao]

Of this, I have many doubts but I would have to dig into unavailable sales info to be sure. But my question would be: how well did the Players Option books sell? They were, in essence, D&D 2.5. The purchase of Skills and Powers quickly disabused me of the notion that the rest were worth picking up. I'd be interested in learning how many other people purchasing the books felt the same way.

I bought them and in respect to what the market was offering at the time and my low experience I felt at the time that they had some really good rules additions to work with.
I was in the phase that I only considered game design as an evolutionary process of "toolboxes". I was really trying to just "build on" and not "discover" at the time.

 

[billd91]

What could Wizards have done better? All IMO, of course:

1) They could have talked less about how 3e sucked (the phrase "if 3e encounter design actually worked" comes to mind as the most notable example). That very quickly became obnoxious, not least because it utterly failed to line up with my experiences with the system.

And that sad thing is that this would have been so easy to avoid. Imagine:
"We've had a lot of fun playing and designing for D&D 3.5 over the years, but we also found that designing adventures for high level play was hard, harder than it needed to be. We believe we can make this aspect of the game better, and with our redesign, we think we have."

Personally, I would have found that approach a lot less annoying and a lot less contradictory of the marketing from the last 8 years. I think JD has a point that WotC sold a bill of goods with the d20 system that the fundamental system was good, that anybody could take it and make a good game with it. The marketing of the next generation of the game should not have been directed against that so forcefully.

 

[Zil]

Of this, I have many doubts but I would have to dig into unavailable sales info to be sure. But my question would be: how well did the Players Option books sell? They were, in essence, D&D 2.5. The purchase of Skills and Powers quickly disabused me of the notion that the rest were worth picking up. I'd be interested in learning how many other people purchasing the books felt the same way.

I;='m not sure how well C&T, S&P and S&M did sell, but our gaming group picked up duplicate copies of all the players options books and converted our games wholesale. At first, it was lots of fun. Even the critical hits table was a blast even though it led to much maiming and broken limbs. However, in time, the system seemed to break down as players got higher in levels and combat just started to take too long to resolve. Then along came 3E which ran much faster and seemed to have a more solid core mechanic so we switched again.

I think that Skills and Powers, Combat and Tactics, and Spells and Magic were a good experiment at the time - sort of laying the groundwork for what a new edition of the game could be. However, 3E was certainly a superior system (but it would have learned from what had come before including C&T and S&P).

Changing systems will also have an effect on sales, even for people normally interested in the brand. How much depends on how big the changes are and how much time people feel they have to learn a new one. Without a doubt, there will be people sticking with 3/3.5 who don't want to have to learn the changes to 4e. The brand name doesn't win in every case.

That's true. This version is the most dramatic departure from what has come before that I've ever seen in the D&D game. Given that fact and that for this changeover, there are supported alternatives for those who want to remain in 3.x/OGL space, the brand name might not carry as much weight as it had in the past. Because of the OGL, and products like Paizo's Pathfinder, there is a place for those who don't want to switch to a new system, and still be able to buy new material for their preferred 'D&D' system.

 

[rjdafoe]

Why not? Because all that "baggage" was what appealed to lots of players in the first place, maybe?
!

Why is it not goot design to keep the fluff in the worlds books where it belongs? I am not talking about classes. There was going to be people upset about it, wether they kept all the classses or not.

They start you off with minimal, easy fluff. Buy the world book for specific fluff that you want. This is great for both players and WOTC.

 

[Imaro]

Why is it not goot design to keep the fluff in the worlds books where it belongs? I am not talking about classes. There was going to be people upset about it, wether they kept all the classses or not.

They start you off with minimal, easy fluff. Buy the world book for specific fluff that you want. This is great for both players and WOTC.

My reply to this would be... then go all the way. Either make D&D a generic ruleset and label it as such or make it a game with an attached setting, but the minimal fluff thing is irksome at a certain point, especially when there may not even be a campaign setting for the world that is hinted at or presented... It also causes a certain amount of disconnect for a new player when they pick up something like Eberron and it's nothing like the implied setting presented in the rulebooks.