Reports and News from D&D XP

[eyebeams]

I think the problem is that, in an absence of actual answers to these questions, you use your own assumptions as facts to base the discussion on.

What do you think I'm assuming, exactly? I haven't drawn any definitive conclusions about how the D&D roleplaying game is doing. I have pointed out that:

1) The success of the brand and the RPG are two different things.

2) Hasbro's reportage doesn't concentrate on the brand at all, but categories that the brand might be broken down into.

3) That the relationship between these categories and the D&D brand probably contain the truth about how various facets of the brand are doing.

Oh, and I'll add:

4) The last time I heard the "best ever" statement, a friend of mine lost her job to layoff weeks after --as did the man who *made* the statement. I suppose my perspective is different in wanting people to have good professional prospects in hobby games instead of being a fan of the brand, but there you go. That's my bias.

 

[eyebeams]

They don't call out any of the properties individually, there's no reason to assume that it means Magic or D&D, or any other particular brand is good bad or whatever. You're making assumptions and basing discussions around those assumptions.

Where should D&D be mentioned? It's a book that's published. "Minis" encompasses SWM and DDM, does that mean SW is somehow a failure?

Actually, they do talk about the prospects of several brands. D&D just isn't usually one of them. For example, Magic's strong performance was cited, while Duel Masters faltered.

 

[Ranger REG]

But WotC wanted to engineer a big success a la FR and Dragonlance. So they pushed Eberron on everyone.

I'm guessing they had to, since they picked it as the winner of their setting search, but that doesn't mean it's the "Kelly Clarkson" of setting. It could turn out to be a "Justin G-something."

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Reference what is in the Living Greyhawk book, plus old canonical material from old modules, GH98 material that catches my fancy, work in references to the ancient migrations and empires.

So a bit more than just "core + Dragon/Dungeon articles + imagination". Fair enough.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

People who think Eberron is a failure are like people who think Third Edition is a failure.

 

[Ranger REG]

Personally, I'm pleased that Greyhawk is getting the support it does receive in Dragon and Dungeon, and I'm sorry for those Greyhawk fans who feel like it's a better idea to ignore that material because it's not in hardcover books from Wizards of the Coast: it's their loss and their mistake.

Hell, my preferred official setting is Eberron, but I still love back-to-the-roots article series like "Core Beliefs" and "Demonomicon", as well as the Greyhawk groundings of the adventure paths. It's fun stuff! What more can you ask?

Would you rather Eberron be supported just through magazine articles and expect no future Eberron game product released from here on out?

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm guessing they had to, since they picked it as the winner of their setting search, but that doesn't mean it's the "Kelly Clarkson" of setting. It could turn out to be a "Justin G-something."

*blink*

They didn't have to push Eberron because they picked it as the winner. They picked it as the winner because they wanted to/thought they could push it. Who do you think chose the winning entry?

 

[MerricB]

People who think Eberron is a failure are like people who think Third Edition is a failure.

Absolutely correct?

Cheers!

 

[Ranger REG]

People who think Eberron is a failure are like people who think Third Edition is a failure.

Nah. 3e isn't a failure. 2e was.

 

[eyebeams]

I made no such accusation, sir. I stated the conditions under which we could draw some meaning out of the statement. And I think that meaning is greater than "somoene was just trying to pump up the brand". Either the statement is true or it isn't. If it is true, then it has meaning. Not huge amounts, but some.

Perhaps you could clarify where you were going with this:

Oh, the statement has meaning. If we take the speaker to be knowledgable and honest, it says that by whatever measure WotC is using, the year was a success. One might extend that into expecting them to continue whatever strategy gave them that success.

. . .

And, of course, if we are not trusting the speaker to be knowledgeable and/or honest, whether teh statement has meaning is moot, as we shouldn't be listening to them at all.

. . . as a response.

The publicly available information (at least that which I've seen) does not seem to me to be sufficient for the task. We need to infer too much for reasonable confidence in accuracy of our conclusions. That is by design - there's no percentage in it for WotC to be forthcoming with what we'd really need to judge.

It really depends on the conclusions. "Best year ever" is an example of a conclusion that, for example, would require a specific explanation to have any substance.