On the marketing of 4E

Sometimes, there's just not much you can do about it. You have to say what you need to say, accept that they don't/won't like it, let them vent for a while (without encouraging the venting) then move on to the good things. Move past the bad and show them why your relationship is worth it.

You certainly can't please all of the people all of the time, but the question (and point of this thread) is, did the marketing make things better or worse for the success of 4E?

IMO, it made it worse, but it doesn't really matter what I think. In the end, all that matters is the bottom line. If the bottom line is healthy (and better than what it was at the end of 3.5), then marketing did a good enough job. We can debate if it could have been better (it could have in my case), but it's more of a thought exercise now, rather than anything that's relevant to 4E's success.

Now it's up to marketing to grow (or at least maintain) the success of the brand/game. It's no longer a 3.5 vs. 4E thing. It's really only a 4E thing (though one could argue it's a 4E vs. all other forms of group entertainment thing since WotC is in such a class by itself).

The challenge now is to keep current players interested in buying more 4E product and (hopefully) attracting new players to buy in.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mallus, the practical fact is that the rule is simply "might makes right" and the only "person" really enfranchised is a legal fiction. Yesterday's highfalutin' designer is today's ex-employee with no ownership of his or her work.

The new folks have not "paid their money same as me". The premise of their privilege is that instead the money I pay goes into their pockets (by way of the corporation that now owns the work of others as it owns theirs).

That is as it is, and proper enough as far as it goes; Gygax and Arneson sold their legal ownership long ago and Dungeons & Dragons® is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast.

By the same token, each of us is a poop producer; when we were very small, that was our primary product. It does not follow that we must regard ourselves as only that.


That is not all there is. There is no reason that human beings cannot go further. It is fact no more incumbent on us to call whatever WotC sells "real" D&D than it is incumbent on WotC to adhere to any convention regarding the name's referent.

Of course, it is a matter of historical record what was published in 1974-76 and 1977-79, what took hobby gaming by storm and created a new field. In that regard, the scales of judgment are rather heavily weighted -- so that it would be foolish to claim that those classic books are not D&D! They made the name upon which TSR and WotC have counted for sales of later products.

If one's assumption is that all that matters is superficial appearances, then of course the marketing issue involves no more than the right "spin" on whatever course of action is chosen. That is misleading. All one controls is one's own deeds. Wheedle all you like, and people will still see through the Emperor's New Clothes.
 

What about that section says to you that he was concerned with "HOW" people play D&D, as opposed to what the rules of the game are designed to handle?

If he told you that he wasn't concerned with HOW people play the game, so much as what the rules are designed to handle, would it still be insulting? If so why?

Taken at face value it seems to indicate that D&D has never been designed with social activities being the main focus of the rules. The focus of the D&D rules has been primarily combat, with non combat activities having little to no focus. Is this indicating you are wrong for wanting your personal games to be about social activities over combat? If so, I don't see it.

To me this is no different then when people suggest using say Call of Cuthulu for a horror game over D&D because CoC was designed around the idea of promoting horror. Or the reverse- CoC was not designed around the idea of going toe to toe with horrible monsters from beyond...

You can certainly play the system that way, and it might be tons of fun- There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing so, but the game was never designed with that intention in mind.

I always thought the rules of D&D (at least pre-4e, but even 4e does an ok job) covered exploration of exotic locales? Traps, terrain, inhabitants (including non-evil one's), etc... or am I wrong? I mean traipsing through a fairy ring (depending on the particular inspiration one draws on) can be an exotic, dangerous and beautiful place... for an example check out Changeling the Lost.
 

I am of the opinion that people were being "insulted" simply because they were pissed off about 4e and wanted to find something to be insulted about.

That's the party line. As Scot Rouse once put it, there's some negative perceptions surrounding 4E products and their marketing. These perceptions are wrong so we (WotC) have to change them. Apparently people like Scot and yourself have never heard about the causal theory of perception, preferring instead to assume massive perceptual errors in the customer base.

Heck, a ways back upthread Windjammer mentiones the "cloud watching" blog post. Yet, when that post was re-examined a few months later, nothing insulting was found.

Feel free to link to the re-examination thread. As far as I recall, Dave Noonan made a blunder in that post. He came off as extremely insulting without meaning too, and he apologized for the post a day or two later on these forums. He even owned up to the fact that his blog entry was badly expressed.

And that's the crux, really. A lot of statements that get castigated as bad marketing in this thread boil down, not to outright insulting statements, but to a healthy mix of statements which are expressed far too carelessly to prevent people feeling insulted. Which equates to bad marketing, full stop. I mean, Noonan having to even post an apology reflects the fact that he had made a blunder. 4E's prerelease marketing was replete with such blunders, and that's why people remember them.

As for statements being expressed misleadingly, also take the passage on the fey which some here tell us has nothing in the least insulting about the fey. Well, the way I read it is actually Wyatt saying that fey in D&D sucked pretty hard prior to their 4E overhaul. People complain "how dare he say that about how I handled fey in my games". 4E fans say "he didn't insult fey - he just insulted how prior editions handled them". That's splitting hairs. What people felt got insulted was not fey per se but a way of handling of fey in D&D - namely their own. If you think Wyatt's statement doesn't contain such an insult, I wager that's because the way of handling fey in D&D he degrades isn't your own.

Or that other statement by Perkins "we will make leveling up a meaningful choice at every level" which, 4E fans now tell us, doesn't by implication carry the statement how, prior to 4E, it wasn't a meaningful choice at every level.

The only thing I can see from this sort of rhetoric defense is that 4E fans don't feel insulted by statements which say that X sucked pretty hard, was less than "meaningful", etc. prior to how 4E handled X. What a surprise! Well of course you don't mind these statements, since their negativitiy doesn't effect your preferred edition's handling of these elements.
 
Last edited:

Is it humanly possible to frankly discuss the pros and cons of various design decisions without insulting a significant number of fans?
 

Not if you do as a designer does [EDIT: tends to do] and speak in designer-speak ("un-fun," "sub-optimal," etc., including, arguably, "bullet in the head").
 
Last edited:

I always thought the rules of D&D (at least pre-4e, but even 4e does an ok job) covered exploration of exotic locales? Traps, terrain, inhabitants (including non-evil one's), etc... or am I wrong? I mean traipsing through a fairy ring (depending on the particular inspiration one draws on) can be an exotic, dangerous and beautiful place... for an example check out Changeling the Lost.

Again this is where the focus is different between what the rules are about, and what you do in game. (And part of what makes TTRGS great.)

You can do anything you want in game at your table, and if it's fun, YOU WIN! For a lot of those activities though, you're not utilizing the D&D rules. (Or if you are you're modifying them to fit your situation.)
 

Again this is where the focus is different between what the rules are about, and what you do in game. (And part of what makes TTRGS great.)

You can do anything you want in game at your table, and if it's fun, YOU WIN! For a lot of those activities though, you're not utilizing the D&D rules. (Or if you are you're modifying them to fit your situation.)

Yes, and again you're asserting what the focus of the game is... when in fact that may not be it. Using 3.5 as an example...There is more information in the DM Guide about locations, traps, setting, etc. than combat... it would seem then the focus is adventuring as opposed to combat... and "traipsing" through a fairy ring (again dependent upon one's influences for fairies or fey) certainly falls under adventuring
 

The position that 4e's marketing failed because of people who didn't like it is a non-argument. While the marketing campaign may, overall, have been successful with many people, it also succeeded in annoying and even offending others.

Certainly, I've never seen a VW commercial I perceived as mocking older Volkswagens.
 

My problem with 4e's marketing wasn't so much the amount of previous editons-bashing, but the overusing of the word "cool" (heck, I'm not a native English speaker and even I know there are many other ways to say something is good).

If I had made a drinking game out of it, I'd still be drunk :p
 

Remove ads

Top