D&D 4E PHB III or 4E PHB which is first?

[Aesthetic Monk]

Sure, why not? Third edition rules seem pretty popular and have a mechanical soundness previous editions lacked. WotC may be a bunch of evil corporate monsters, but I think they have enough business sense to realize that people aren't just going to throw away the last several years woth of rulebooks just because WotC commands them too. If they're not going to come up with a new set of rules that are a radical departure from what we're playing now, if they're not going to bank on everyone throwing away their rulebooks, then why call it a new edition? Just call the new books "revisions" and give away freely downloadable conversion kits.

This I'd endorse as a general proposition. The devil's in the details, of course, but there are enough fairly substantial errata now plus other revisions/refinements (e.g., swift/immediate actions) that a "light" revision (nothing on 3.5's scale, IMO) could be good for the PHB and MM.

 

[delericho]

Anyone of any marketing studies that compare the sale of adventures to sourcebooks?

I'm not aware of any, but there are several logical reasons why sourcebooks make more money:

1) Adventures tend to be at a lower price point/page count, which means you get less profit per unit. It's not clear (to me) how the work required to produce a good adventure compares with that to produce a good sourcebook.

2) An adventure can be sold to 1/5th of the potential customer base: DMs. A sourcebook can theoretically be sold to the whole customer base. Or, to put it another way, if 25% of the potential customers buy a sourcebook, it shifts more units than an adventure that is bought by 100% of DMs. And no adventure even comes close to that 100% figure.

Plus, of course, adventures are competing against Dungeon. You have to be really good to compete with 3 adventures for $7.

 

[Mystery Man]

Other - 4E pundits should get the freaking hint by now.

 

[NeoSamurai]

I was under the impression that adventure focus was one of the reasons TSR failed and WotC bought them out.

Keep this in mind:

Setting Sourcebooks and Adventures tend to be bought by DMs only (or people who want to be DMs--but I lump them in the same group). All types of players buy rules expansions. The more books in line that cater to all players the more money WotC makes. That is why books like Complete Warriors is good and why a multitude of settings are bad.

 

[Nyaricus]

I voted 'other'. I can't entirely remember why anymore.


glass.

Because you agreed with me on the plausibility of giant anthropomorhpic cockroaches coming down to earth shooting lazer-beams out of their butt-holes killing all of mankind and vapourizing the earth, of course

 

[glass]

I voted 'other'. I can't entirely remember why anymore.

Because you agreed with me on the plausibility of giant anthropomorhpic cockroaches coming down to earth shooting lazer-beams out of their butt-holes killing all of mankind and vapourizing the earth, of course

I for one welcomne our new anthropomorphic cockroach overlords!

I said so, didn't I?


glass.

 

[glass]

I voted 'other'. I can't entirely remember why anymore.

I remember now!

I was wondering whether they could release a Rules Cyclopedia like they did for B/C/ED&D back-in-the-day. They could include most of the contents of the PHB, plus the key bits of the DMG (like magic items) and maybe even a few of the most core monsters, without changing the rules at all.

It'd lower the cost of entry for newcomers to the hobby, and allows a new line of supplements that work from a slightly different core assumptions but are still compatible with existing gamer's core rules and supplements.

It wouldn't create the same buzz and sales bump as a new edition, but it would create some, and it would have long term benefits too and keep the current edition viable and profitable for that little bit longer.


glass.

 

[Nyaricus]

I said so, didn't I?

That's what I like to hear

 

[Felon]

This I'd endorse as a general proposition. The devil's in the details, of course, but there are enough fairly substantial errata now plus other revisions/refinements (e.g., swift/immediate actions) that a "light" revision (nothing on 3.5's scale, IMO) could be good for the PHB and MM.

Personally, I didn't think 3.5 as being that huge of a revision. A class or two got overhauled, and some feats and spells were reworded. Guess if I thought about it long enough I might see what the big deal was.

2) An adventure can be sold to 1/5th of the potential customer base: DMs. A sourcebook can theoretically be sold to the whole customer base. Or, to put it another way, if 25% of the potential customers buy a sourcebook, it shifts more units than an adventure that is bought by 100% of DMs. And no adventure even comes close to that 100% figure.

See, I never really saw all that much merit of this arguement. In the groups I've played in, one avid gamer with disposable income to burn owns all the books, and the rest just sort of mooches off him. Or, one guy owns all the books for a certain subject (i.e. mage stuff) and another player owns all the books for another subject (i.e. warrior stuff). Now, I'm not saying you won't see a couple of the same Complete books at the same game table, but I do think I'm a lot less likely to see two of the same Third-Party-Synonym-for-"Completr"-Knock-Off book.

Of course, that's somewhat moot for a micro-publisher. They have to print small, targeted runs anyway.

 

[Tuzenbach]

What I WANT is for a "Complete Players Handbook" to come out. This would include ALL the base classes previously published. Also, ALL the playable races in the D&D world. And though there probably wouldn't be enough room for ALL the spells, you could have ALL the skills, feats, equipment, & a handy reference guide listing the basic facts regarding ALL the prestige classes.

Sadly, the release of this product would herald the imminent arrival of 4E, probably about 18 months after the fact.....