On the marketing of 4E

[Henry]

Generic... vampire-land...module!!??! You take that back!

Forgive him, he's a D&D youngling.

I kid Shemeska 'cause I know him, but I had a lot of affinity for the great ideas that came out of the 2E years, also; unfortunately, there was more "idea factory" going on than "business savvy" and TSR paid the price. For anyone who came to 3E but was faimliar with the 2E flavorful settings, the 3E settings and ideas seem pretty sparse by comparison. For me, though, I've been exposed to 'em for so long they were worn out to me by the time 3E came along, and I was looking for something new. Now, a lot of the 4E stuff seems to be tapping back into some ideas from the earlier editions that I wouldn't mind seeing again.

 

[M.L. Martin]

In 2e, kits and other customizations existed, but they were suggested for concepts from the role-playing perspective, or the "story" side of things. In fact, I forget if its the PHB or DMG, but the 2nd Edition book there's a section saying that people SHOULD NOT Min/Max because it's not what the game is about.

DMG, Chapter 5: Proficiencies, I believe. But yes, in 2E's day, there was a serious sense that trying to 'min/max' or break the game was bad form.

Anoter difference is that in 2E, nearly all choices had to be made at character creation, meaning that what builds there were focused more on 'what to pick at startup' rather than 'here's a 20-level plan that must be followed rigidly to ensure Ultimate Power."

In 3e, Min/Maxing, multiclassing, prestige classes, all of that was encouraged. Part of the design of 3e was to make sure people remembered it was a game, rolling dice, hack and slash, etc. So you now shifted from de-emphasizing that to whole "min/max" articles in Dragon. (I believe WoTC recognized that many people played CRPGs that way and many table-top players played that way).

I have distinct memories of one of the designers saying online in the run-up to 3E: "Go ahead and min/max if you like. The game won't break." Unfortunately, it was in an ephemeral medium, so I can't cite and may be misremembering.

 

[M.L. Martin]

My initial impression, as someone who DM'ed 2e for years, was 3e seemed pretty different. The more I played and discussed it online, 'pretty' morphed into 'very', at least in terms of the mechanics and their influence on play. Of course, I later came round to the idea that, despite mechanical differences, all D&D is of a kind.

Very well, then; you saw it sooner and more clearly than I did. (Actual play makes a difference. ) I still think the differences between the two, while profound, are less overt than the 3E-4E changeover.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Here's a quick question someone might be able to answer: How is it that it is okay to sell Dungeon and Dragon only in PDFs, but not older materials in PDF form because of piracy?

 

[an_idol_mind]

Here's a quick question someone might be able to answer: How is it that it is okay to sell Dungeon and Dragon only in PDFs, but not older materials in PDF form because of piracy?

Since Paizo published the magazines for several years, I think they have the rights to distribute the PDFs as they see fit.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Since Paizo published the magazines for several years, I think they have the rights to distribute the PDFs as they see fit.

Um....I refer to electronic format DDI articles, not Paizo. It seems like a marketing bit to claim that older editions are pulled because electronic copy is unsafe, but the mags are only published electronically, and that's okay.


RC

 

[Aus_Snow]

Because that whole piracy debacle was a pathetically clumsy and half-assed smokescreen, basically.

Not the first one from them, either.

 

[Voadam]

If we assume the release of the 4E rules as they have come to be, that they were released with a delayed and later revised GSL and not the OGL, discontinued support for previous editions(including the removal of PDFs) and the release of DDI as it came to be(including online Dungeon and Dragon magazines), could WotC have marketed or promoted 4E in a way that would have led to a different perception/opinion than what has come to pass?

I hear a lot of criticism of the marketing of 4E, but given the substance of 4E as it has come to pass, would it really have made a difference?

Free online rules such as was done with the OGL SRD would have helped so that people could examine the rules for free easily.

Releasing the free quickstart and shadowfell stuff was a move in the right direction, but a small step significantly after launch. Same for the MM online art gallery.

I know I haven't been motivated enough to spend $25 on a 4e PH (or a pdf of it when they were available for that price) to try out the new system. I haven't even had the interest yet to read fully through the quickstart rules at this point now that they are released.

I would have read the rules early on but I didn't want to spend $20 on Shadowfell or $75 on core books sight unseen. Listening to the dribs and drabs of teaser information hints did not interest me in following those obsessively to get a smattering of out of context rules that might be correct or might not for the final product.

The continued lessening of what they offered as time of release came closer also soured me on WotC 4e.

"PDFs for the price of a cup of coffee." ->
"Actually that won't work so we'll come out with pdfs late and sell them for $25 each." ->
"Actually our books are pirated online and we decided we won't sell you legal pdf copies of them at all. If you want legal pdfs sorry you are out of luck unless you scan your own."

"We like 3rd party support and open gaming will continue with 4e D&D, we invited top 3PP's to talk about 4e and how they can get early access to rules and have stuff ready at launch." ->
"Actually we are going to make it different with a new license so there will be a little delay, but expect stuff soon from your favorite 3PPs." ->
"Here's the long delayed GSL, be grateful that even this unattractive restricted license exists. A couple people will go with it and make a few products."

Pomising things then disapointing those expectations seems like a marketing failure to me that leads to ill feelings.

 

[Voadam]

Since Paizo published the magazines for several years, I think they have the rights to distribute the PDFs as they see fit.

Currently WotC publishes 4e Dragon and Dungeon magazines as pdfs only.

 

[Voadam]

Here's a quick question someone might be able to answer: How is it that it is okay to sell Dungeon and Dragon only in PDFs, but not older materials in PDF form because of piracy?

I'm sure WotC considers it an unfortunate necessity as they want to provide Dungeon and Dragon 4e D&D support material and adventures but don't want to print the magazines or license it out to a company like Paizo to do so. Since they only exist as pdfs they unfortunately can't be pulled without denying total access to the Dragon and Dungeon material they want to put out there in support of their current game line. Therefore WotC will face the terrible costs of piracy so as to allow these pdfs to be sold and the 4e support material to go to the DDI subscribers.

I think WotC considers older edition electronic sales support is not a big deal for them and can wait until/if they find a new format they are happy with. Old edition ones after all exist in hardcopy same as current 4e books so they are out there. Also old edition ones don't really support the current edition being published the way current Dungeon and Dragon articles do so it is not a necessity for WotC to actively get them out there themselves.

I'm sure WotC thinks it will happily switch Dungeon and Dragon over to a new electronic format along with possibly old edition ones if their explorations of options finds anything they consider acceptable.