On the marketing of 4E

[pawsplay]

I was unaware that there were people who didn't make fun of gnomes, until I encountered this attitude on the internet. I thought that was why we had gnomes. I thought their whole point was to be ridiculous and the butt of jokes. I thought that was the whole reason gnome fans liked gnomes- because they're funny and you can laugh at them.

And now they're gone. Or at least, relegated to being fey ninja halflings tucked into the Monster Manual who turn invisible in much the same way some lizards lose their tails. Comments about the "sacred gnome" are off-base. Clearly, different designers of D&D at various times have struggled with defining what a gnome was. Nonetheless, AD&D has always had the gnomes, less staid versions of the pick-toting dwarves with illusion spells and more reclusive but congenial personalities. At times they may have been presented in a ridiculous way, but they have long-time been a part of the D&D milieu. I remember, when I was a wee lad playing Red Box D&D, being perturbed that the D&D gods had granted gnomes to players of AD&D but not the basic set. There was a gnome illusionist in the AD&D miniatures set, along with a gnome thief-illusionist. Now that gnomes have been made over (to wingless pixies, essentially), you would have to go back to every D&D product that featured a gnome and replace 95% of them with something else. While every setting treated gnomes differently, all were clearly humanoid creatures with resemblances to humans and other humanoids. Gnomes are one of those creatuers that actually has roots in the culture outside D&D and its more specific influences. Unlike, say, a dragonborn, they do not have as compelling a visual hook and really rely on designer love to be appealing to a lot of people. 3e seemed to have trouble doing something with the gnome.

So bringing use back to the issue at hand. Gnomes were excised for page count. They were cut because they did not generate enough revenue to justify an extra one or two pages in the main book. Despite that WoW, that mutant offspring of D&D, features gnomes as a popular race, despite the gnome love of many Krynn fans, and so on, and so forth, the gnome was cut. Ok, that happens. You cannot make space for everything. Even though I personally would have tried to find a place for gnomes, for continuity's sake, I can respect that decision.

Let's get back to the marketing campaign. The message in a nut-shell: "Gnomes are useless because no one wanted to play them." So if you liked gnomes, you were "no one," and if you like playing them, you like playing something that is useless. Ouch. So then people started to grumble. Wotc came back with, "Well, they're in the monster manual." Then, later, "Here's a funny cartoon that portrays gnomes as something useless and vacuous that no one plays. Haha. Don't worry, you won't even miss them."

Let's review a few of the intended and unintended messages of that cartoon.
- Gnomes are squeaky, stupid dorks who feel good about being sidelined into being monsters. They are so stupid, they are actually happy not to be in the PHB. It is good they are not in the PHB and that the stupid gnome is happy.
- It's funny when gnomes die.
- If a playable race isn't popular with the largest segments of the D&D buyer, it isn't worth having.
- Things are monsters because they are intended to be slain. Logically, a gnome cannot then be something which you would not slay.
- Edgy, sociopathic tieflings are better than gnomes.
- Gnomes look like halflings. You wouldn't want to play a stupid, beardless halfling would you?

And let's review the PHB situation at that time:
- Gnomes out, tieflings and dragonborns in.
- Any setting with gnomes either has to lose the gnomes or else customize something for that setting to be a "gnome" which is not the MM gnome.
- Similarly, to cover the PHB options, all settings now need an ancient race of dragon people and a fallen empire of fiendish casters.
- Illusions are saved for a rainy day.
- The nature race is now the elf.
- Actually, you can forget about thief-illusionists for now, since multiclassing has been nerfed-by-unsupport for the time being and illusions are for later.

So not only have basic assumptions been rewritten so that your home campaign now needs tieflings and there is no gnome, but if you wanted to play a thief-illusionist, whether a nature lover or a slightly impish craftsman, there really is not much left for you. In 4e, you might go with a half-elf wizard with skill training. And if you waited long enough, illusions did come back... sort of.

But this is funny, right? The gnome is just a particularly innocuous target in a broader theme: start a new campaign, your old one is obsolete. "Enjoy your half-elf wizard, lol."

 

[JoeGKushner]

In some ways, the marketing of 4e still has to move up.

Having some things in Dragon that are essentially ads for upcoming product? Not a terrible loss to the reader of Dragon but a loss to the person who doesn't subscribe who you'd WANT to know about these things.

Claiming that you couldn't find a way to do a boxed set for an adventure when numerous other companies have? Hint, don't say you're doing a boxed set in the first place. (And if I'm wrong here and the Giants book has changed back to a boxed set with counters, I'll be happy to be wrong on that count.)

 

[ggroy]

I think what has hurt 4th edition was actually 3.5e. Between editions was a good five to ten year run between editions. Everything was spaced out long enough so that the books, supplements, novels, etc. maintained the customer's interest.

3.5 ruined it in that respect because a whole new quasi-edition was created within three years after the start of 3rd edition. And then, 4th edition emerged about five years after that. For customers who were used to a long stretch between 2nd and 3rd editions this decision for a revised edition must have seeded doubt, as the various editions between the beginner's set and 2nd edition had seeded doubts in TSR's ability to continue the brand.

There could have been Hasbro corporate stuff behind the scenes which eventually led to 3.5E, which may have been significantly toned down (or almost absent) during the TSR era.

Working in a publicly traded multinational corporation setting could be quite different than working in a small or medium sized privately owned company.

 

[TheFindus]

When I first heard of 4e, I was exited, although I had been an avid suporter of 3.5. And looking back at the marketing they did, I think they presented a good amount of information about how 4e would look like.

I did and do not have a problem with the fact that they pointed out the flaws of 3.5 and how they tried to fix those in 4e. In fact, I agreed with almost all of them and I see how 4e has changed those issues to the better.

Having said that, I could not agree more to those who say that they could have toned down some of the negative remarks on 3.5, no matter how much I agreed with them. I remember either Mike Mearls or David Noonan saying in one of their podcasts that he would not be willing to play 3.5 anymore now that he had been playtesting 4e for quite some time.
Now, as a normal player or normal DM, one could say something like this. I would have said something like this in some sort of nerdish affection. But as somebody who represents WotC in an official podcast, it makes poor marketing IMO, because it might alienate those who would be willing to try 4e out although liking 3.5 despite its flaws.
Then again, Mike Mearls and David Noonan are not the marketing team, but designers. But judging from the podcast, they are as nerdish sometimes as all roleplayers that I know (me included) get. And they might not have thought about the effect their comments would have in todays internet.

Regarding Paizo, I do feel, after lurking through many many threads on ENworld that a lot of people seem to think this company seems more altruistic than WotC. A lot of people seem to forget that Paizo made money with another company's product and development which WotC gave away for free. Now, when WotC decides to take part of the "free" away, everybody gets all upset and trashes WotC for the GSL ("it should have been an OGL, not GSL"). And everybody seems to applaud Paizo for their "new" Pathfinder roleplaying game, when instead they should be on their knees, thanking WotC to produce 3.x and the OGL in the first place. They made Paizo and Pathfinder possible. In my opinion, it was a legitimate move not to produce another OGL, because the OGL only makes the competition stronger. And why would you want that?

It does not make WotC evil (I think that is what some people mean when they say that "the suits" have taken over). WotC is not the BBEG.

And 4e is a very fine product. DDI is much cheaper than buying the printed magazines here in Germany every month. Plus with all the added content, it does the right things for me as a DM.

(edited for spelling)

 

[DaveMage]

And everybody seems to applaud Paizo for their "new" Pathfinder roleplaying game, when instead they should be on their knees, thanking WotC to produce 3.x and the OGL in the first place.

No - you mean, thanking Ryan Dancey and Peter Adkison for the OGL, who are no longer with WotC. (And I *do* very much thank Ryan and Peter for the OGL.)

The WotC of today did not create the OGL, and deserve no thanks for it, IMO.

 

[Elbeghast]

no - you mean, thanking ryan dancey and peter adkison for the ogl, who are no longer with wotc. (and i *do* very much thank ryan and peter for the ogl.)

the wotc of today did not create the ogl, and deserve no thanks for it, imo.

qft.

 

[TheFindus]

No - you mean, thanking Ryan Dancey and Peter Adkison for the OGL, who are no longer with WotC. (And I *do* very much thank Ryan and Peter for the OGL.)

The WotC of today did not create the OGL, and deserve no thanks for it, IMO.

Aww, come on. Or are you trying to be funny? The rules did not belong to these two people, it was the company's decision to do the OGL and allow others to use the rules for free. Dancey and Adkinson pushed for it, sure. But the company (including Hasbro, maybe) did not have to go along with them. Did the company good to do it, though, since 3.x sold very well (I do not want to start a discussion if WotC have done a new OGL, this is not the thread for that).
However, if you are really unwilling to give the company any credit at all, at least include Skaff Elias.

 

[Mallus]

That's your opinion. Don't expect everyone to share it.

I don't expect people to share my opinion.

But I do expect them to be good-humored and not overly-sensitive about the things they enjoy (for instance, opera, D&D, NY Giants football). Or, more precisely, I think it's beneficial to a person to be good-humored and not overly sensitive about the things they enjoy.

Reverse this and see how it shakes out. Is it ever good thing for a person to be humorless and overly-sensitive about the things they enjoy?

 

[The Ghost]

Re: Gnomes.

My girlfriend loves gnomes. When she first started playing D&D it was a gnome that she wanted to play. She does not play her as a practical jokester or comic relief but instead as a serious academic (albeit one who looks just like a garden gnome). I have been running a campaign for her character for a little over three years now. She loves her character.

She has no real knowledge of TSR or other campaign settings or how gnomes have been portrayed. She is a very casual gamer; she only owns enough books to play her character but did buy a lot of books for me. She tends to get a little frustrated with the complexity of the 3.5 rules from time-to-time. She is exactly the kind of person WotC should have marketed 4e to.

And yet she refuses to try the game. Why? Because of how they treated the gnome. The one thing that she loved about D&D was being mocked. It didn't matter to her that the tiefling was also being mocked in that video. In her mind it was her character that was sitting up there - it was her character that was the joke. I certainly don't blame her (or anyone else) for feeling offended by that.

 

[carmachu]

Ah, the conundrum why Paizo can get away with marketing moves that WotC can't.

Here's the answer. It's not product marketing, it's customer relations.

Its the product too, but yes customer relations helps alot. Its why games workshop has a crappy reputation with many of its fans where as privateer press can get a pass in the miniature game world.

Customer relations always helps. Its not the only thing.....but it helps.