Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 5468624" data-attributes="member: 19675">First, this isn't about &quot;proof&quot;.&nbsp; There isn't any.&nbsp; Statement #1 is derived from generalities about business and the self reporting that goes on around here.&nbsp; From the second category, we have innumerable posts about how people don't like 4Ed because it &quot;nerfed&quot; this or &quot;ditched&quot; that.From the former, there are the realities of how &amp; why businesses launch products &quot;from the makers of _______&quot;, even in entertainment.&nbsp; Branding matters, but there's more than one way to leverage branding than just slapping the brand name on something and saying &quot;here is the new one.&quot;&nbsp; How many movies have you seen because of a particular director or actor's involvement being prominently displayed in the ad campaign?&nbsp; New books have writers names in highly-visible print- often along with &quot;from the writer of&quot;- that are not directly linked to prior work (IOW, not a sequel).&nbsp; Why do you think the NFL made it clear that Arena League Football was a one of their products?&nbsp; The answer is they're leveraging their existing brand identity to improve the odds of success for a new product...without directly impacting the established brand.&nbsp; Just based on consumer psychology, if you've ever bought an RPG besides D&amp;D, but D&amp;D is among your favorites, &quot;by the makers of D&amp;D&quot; would probably have gotten you to give the game a chance...while diminishing the likelihood of having strong set of negative emotional responses about &quot;what has been changed.&quot;&nbsp; &quot;By the makers of D&amp;D&quot; lets them put the D&amp;D brand name on something without having to remake D&amp;D; it leverages the name without requiring the new product be the same.Second, legacy issues clearly limited the mechanical design of 4Ed.&nbsp; Without legacy issues, 4Ed could have:<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Ditched alignment completely</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Would not have needed a class-based strucure, meaning no need for multiclassing, more flex in feat utilities, and so forth.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Could have provided a template for race designs not locked into &quot;D&amp;D&quot; expectations</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Could have had more variation within the powers themselves: for example, A/E/D/U versions of each could represent either &quot;overcharging&quot;/ lesser=&gt;greater versions of spells (like in Arcana Unearthed) or actual variants of the spells- what would a MM Daily look like?&nbsp; Or an At-Will version of Fireball?</li>
</ol>...Not that I agree all of those would be changes I would want personally.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dannyalcatraz, post: 5468624, member: 19675"] First, this isn't about "proof". There isn't any. Statement #1 is derived from generalities about business and the self reporting that goes on around here. From the second category, we have innumerable posts about how people don't like 4Ed because it "nerfed" this or "ditched" that. From the former, there are the realities of how & why businesses launch products "from the makers of _______", even in entertainment. Branding matters, but there's more than one way to leverage branding than just slapping the brand name on something and saying "here is the new one." How many movies have you seen because of a particular director or actor's involvement being prominently displayed in the ad campaign? New books have writers names in highly-visible print- often along with "from the writer of"- that are not directly linked to prior work (IOW, not a sequel). Why do you think the NFL made it clear that Arena League Football was a one of their products? The answer is they're leveraging their existing brand identity to improve the odds of success for a new product...without directly impacting the established brand. Just based on consumer psychology, if you've ever bought an RPG besides D&D, but D&D is among your favorites, "by the makers of D&D" would probably have gotten you to give the game a chance...while diminishing the likelihood of having strong set of negative emotional responses about "what has been changed." "By the makers of D&D" lets them put the D&D brand name on something without having to remake D&D; it leverages the name without requiring the new product be the same. Second, legacy issues [I]clearly[/I] limited the mechanical design of 4Ed. Without legacy issues, 4Ed could have: [LIST=1] [*]Ditched alignment completely [*]Would not have needed a class-based strucure, meaning no need for multiclassing, more flex in feat utilities, and so forth. [*]Could have provided a template for race designs not locked into "D&D" expectations [*]Could have had more variation within the powers themselves: for example, A/E/D/U versions of each could represent either "overcharging"/ lesser=>greater versions of spells (like in Arcana Unearthed) or actual variants of the spells- what would a MM Daily look like? Or an At-Will version of Fireball? [/LIST] ...Not that I agree all of those would be changes I would want personally. [/QUOTE]

Verification