Marketing criticisms miss the point
- Thread starter Negflar2099
- Start date
I am willing to wager, however, that 2e character concepts created with the core 2e books could be created with the core 3e books. This is what I am talking about. The character concepts that my players have are all created with 3e core books only. Many of them are not possible with 4e core books. That is what I have been saying. Because of these omissions, the way the game has been marketed (that 4e is the be all and end all of gaming and 3e is a flawed morass that you should not ever play), and the direction that the game seems to be taking, all make the game less appealing to me and my group. The biggest flaw, we feel, has been the way the game has been marketed. Lack of solid information for a long time, and a number of designers saying that 3e was flawed and a waste of time, both contributed to our decision.Dire Bare said:
Scott_Rouse
Explorer
I think it is awesome you guys just spent 5 pages talking about marketing!
Here's my next ad campaign concept.
Gnome Druids Rule!
Here's my next ad campaign concept.
Gnome Druids Rule!
jmucchiello
Hero
Concept, perhaps. But in balance with the other party members? Not so much. I still lament not being able to play my druid/bard in 3e. Not only was the multiclassing of two spellcasting classes subpar, but the bard class was subpar as well. I spent most of 2e playing bards and fighter/bards (and the one druid/bard). But I never played a 3e bard. It did not appeal to me.sjmiller said:
Yet, I still played 3e. Not being able to move characters from old campaigns to 4e is not that big a deal. And while I'd like to have seen more "standard" classes in the PHB. I can wait till PHB2 for a bard that might strike my fancy this time around.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
My thought is this:
WotC marketing was very successful.
Look at the PHB Lite from Verys Akron (sp). Look at ketyris monster list. Look at Raiders of Oakhurst.
These are all results of WotC marketing. Fans have spend so much time and effort that we basically recreated the core of the rules system, and two supplements (a monster manual and an adventure), way before the product actually launched, and without getting any money for it.
This whole message board was restructured twice before the 4E release to integrate the 4E discussions. (I wouldn't be surprised if it also got more visitors then in a long time, but this might be wrong.)
Just because we also like to b*tch and moan doesn't mean that the marketing was not a success. Everyone that bothers to post on 4E related topics is probably already emotionally invested in 4E.
Apparantly most of those that don't want to go 4E are still buying the core rulebooks, some even the Keep on the Shadowfell adventure.
If this is a marketing failure, then what would a marketing success be?
---
Also the killing of sacred cows: I couldn't care less. I am not emotionally invested in the 3E cosmology or vancian magic, and always saw it just as an implied setting that I could and would change as I see fit.
Many people applaud 3E for its toolbox approach to many things and how you can do basically everything fantasy related with it. But then there are also people that demand to see the Great Wheel or Vancian magic as default assumptions? Even as integrated in the core rules as they are in 3E? What's with the "toolboxers" and tinkers? How does this help them?
The "D&D is my generic fantasy game system" and the "I need those sacred cows to make this D&D" are two different groups of the D&D fanbase, but I think it's evident that both sides can't be pleased. Ripping out the alignment system is a lot of work. Changing the cosmology is a little easier (but just a little).
4E is at least better in that regard. Changing the cosmology requires just a new paragraph in your personal setting bible.
"In the Lands of the Holy Bovine, there is no Shadowfell or Feywild. Eladrin hail from the Astral Plane, and their Feystep ability allows them to step through the astral plane. Their is also an Eathreal plane and a Shadow plane. All 3 planes are mostly featureless. There are also 9 alignments and a plane for each of them. <insert planes and alignment name here>)"
Okay, maybe someone that cared more for the old planes would create a lot better fluff text, and could create more then one paragraph.
WotC marketing was very successful.
Look at the PHB Lite from Verys Akron (sp). Look at ketyris monster list. Look at Raiders of Oakhurst.
These are all results of WotC marketing. Fans have spend so much time and effort that we basically recreated the core of the rules system, and two supplements (a monster manual and an adventure), way before the product actually launched, and without getting any money for it.
This whole message board was restructured twice before the 4E release to integrate the 4E discussions. (I wouldn't be surprised if it also got more visitors then in a long time, but this might be wrong.)
Just because we also like to b*tch and moan doesn't mean that the marketing was not a success. Everyone that bothers to post on 4E related topics is probably already emotionally invested in 4E.
Apparantly most of those that don't want to go 4E are still buying the core rulebooks, some even the Keep on the Shadowfell adventure.
If this is a marketing failure, then what would a marketing success be?
---
Also the killing of sacred cows: I couldn't care less. I am not emotionally invested in the 3E cosmology or vancian magic, and always saw it just as an implied setting that I could and would change as I see fit.
Many people applaud 3E for its toolbox approach to many things and how you can do basically everything fantasy related with it. But then there are also people that demand to see the Great Wheel or Vancian magic as default assumptions? Even as integrated in the core rules as they are in 3E? What's with the "toolboxers" and tinkers? How does this help them?
The "D&D is my generic fantasy game system" and the "I need those sacred cows to make this D&D" are two different groups of the D&D fanbase, but I think it's evident that both sides can't be pleased. Ripping out the alignment system is a lot of work. Changing the cosmology is a little easier (but just a little).
4E is at least better in that regard. Changing the cosmology requires just a new paragraph in your personal setting bible.
"In the Lands of the Holy Bovine, there is no Shadowfell or Feywild. Eladrin hail from the Astral Plane, and their Feystep ability allows them to step through the astral plane. Their is also an Eathreal plane and a Shadow plane. All 3 planes are mostly featureless. There are also 9 alignments and a plane for each of them. <insert planes and alignment name here>)"
Okay, maybe someone that cared more for the old planes would create a lot better fluff text, and could create more then one paragraph.
Here is what I have seen as a retailer of 4e:
Every single customer in our store who has played it loves it. They all say it is the best version of D&D to date. All of our distributors sold out of the first print run and the second print run of the core books is flowing in. We've gone through tons of the product. We ran 3 D&D game days since Shadowfell released and all of which had over 50+ participants with up towards 100+ on the official D&D game day.
I am running and playing 2 4e groups right now with over 50+ hours playing between them. Our customers in the store are converting all of their in-store groups over. No one is complaining about 4e.
I personally have played since the blue original box. I loved every edition of D&D. From what I see, 4e was needed and is the most true to the D&D soul of 1st edition and it plays the best out of all of the editions over the years.
Although there are some valid complaints (like character multiclass concepts - ie conan starting as a rogue and becoming a fighter) from my perceptions 80% of the perceptions of the naysayers are wrong and would change if they would just play the game. The other 20% have legit concerns.
One point about compatiblity with 3.0 and 3.5. What edition of D&D has ever truely been compatible with the previous stuff? Even 3.0 and 3.5 do not work together seamlessly. I know I do not pull out my 2nd edition books to play mechanically with my 3.5 ones. I mine them for ideas, but that is it.
3.5 had major internal math and design issues that could only be fixed with a total overhaul. As a previous poster pointed out, even Monte Cook came out and discussed some of these issues in his journal.
Look, try 4e before you judge it. The kool-aid tastes great and none of us who drank it have died yet. At least that I know of.
The kool aid is safe, right Scott?
Every single customer in our store who has played it loves it. They all say it is the best version of D&D to date. All of our distributors sold out of the first print run and the second print run of the core books is flowing in. We've gone through tons of the product. We ran 3 D&D game days since Shadowfell released and all of which had over 50+ participants with up towards 100+ on the official D&D game day.
I am running and playing 2 4e groups right now with over 50+ hours playing between them. Our customers in the store are converting all of their in-store groups over. No one is complaining about 4e.
I personally have played since the blue original box. I loved every edition of D&D. From what I see, 4e was needed and is the most true to the D&D soul of 1st edition and it plays the best out of all of the editions over the years.
Although there are some valid complaints (like character multiclass concepts - ie conan starting as a rogue and becoming a fighter) from my perceptions 80% of the perceptions of the naysayers are wrong and would change if they would just play the game. The other 20% have legit concerns.
One point about compatiblity with 3.0 and 3.5. What edition of D&D has ever truely been compatible with the previous stuff? Even 3.0 and 3.5 do not work together seamlessly. I know I do not pull out my 2nd edition books to play mechanically with my 3.5 ones. I mine them for ideas, but that is it.
3.5 had major internal math and design issues that could only be fixed with a total overhaul. As a previous poster pointed out, even Monte Cook came out and discussed some of these issues in his journal.
Look, try 4e before you judge it. The kool-aid tastes great and none of us who drank it have died yet. At least that I know of.
The kool aid is safe, right Scott?
Moonshade
First Post
Mustrum_Ridcully said:
Even better sales? The difference between a hit and a blockbuster, in movie terms? And DDI could have been a marketing success: "see what awesome opportunities we're offering you and your former group now scattered across the country", instead of the current "yes, we continued to promote DDI but the gaming parts will actually, maybe, be available months from now, shame you bought the books under the impression you'd be able to have DDI games and now have new books but no group".
I'm really disappointed in DDI and don't see how it's a good thing it's been delayed for who knows how many months. WOTC has known for how long that 4E would have a digital aspect? It was a major part of the first 4E announcement. The ads in the 4E books promote DDI as an online experience with digital tools that will allow you to play with friends no matter where they live. So this official explanation strikes me as somewhat hollow: "Because D&D Insider has always been an extra subscription, it never occurred to me that some players might feel misled about not having tools available at launch."
One can agree/disagree when it comes to things like "you can't possible have liked using Skill X in 3E games" being marketing failures, but DDI was a chance for WOTC to show that they've learned from past mistakes and can offer a reliable online product worth the money. There's talk about how people aren't patient these days, how there's Dragon/Dungeon articles, but what a boon it would have been to marketing to have actual digital tools available on launch day! To be able to promote the "game with your friends" idea instead of dodging the issue of just how long it will take for the tools mentioned in the core books that urge you to sign up for a free trial to become available. I feel rather strongly about this, and think that DDI is definitely a case for marketing rolling 1 when it comes to distributing information and missing out on the chance to show off a 20 due the screwups of the people responsible for developing DDI. DDI should have been a priority, it should have been viewed as an opportunity to dispel WOTC's bad rep when it comes to online products, and "it'll be ready when it's ready" from a company with a history of online failures is not a marketing dream.
Similar Threads
