| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| MOTHdevil07-13-07, 12:13 PM | With new posts about a 4E every other day, it seems the root of the concept always boils down to two things: 1) A comprehensive way for Wizards to renew their franchise and increase revenue. 2) A comprehensive way for Wizards to address flaws and suggestions that pop up from player feedback. The problem with this is that the majority of the posters in the 4E discussions loathe the idea of shelling out more money for another edition of books, when the popular view is that 3.5 isn't fundamentally flawed. So how about this...? Annuals. Rather than release a new edition every few years and risk diluting or driving off the player-base, WOTC could release a set ANNUAL update for the core books, and perhaps one for other popular lines as well (Completes, Tomes, FR, Eb, Minis). This would address not only errata, but also comprehensive updates to a rule-set many of us regard as mostly solid. This would be a single yearly book addressing changes, rather than a reboot of the entire line. It would provide a publication people would look forward to, give WOTC a yearly cycle to collate player feedback, and locate all these changes and updates in a single place. Rather than foster a "doom and gloom" of yet another edition looming over everyone's head, there would be full transparency, since everyone would know a year in advance that an update was set to take place. The opinion would likely shift from a "sky is falling" air, to one where people look forward to the new update. It would also provide WOTC with a consistent and expected source of revenue to count on yearly. |
| BlaineTog07-13-07, 12:42 PM | Here's my idea for an alternate from 4e threads: every time you think about starting one, go make yourself a cup of tea instead. |
| MOTHdevil07-13-07, 01:07 PM | Here's my idea for an alternate from 4e threads: every time you think about starting one, go make yourself a cup of tea instead. I would, but I don't think it's backwards-compatible with my biscuit. |
| PurinaDragonChow07-13-07, 01:26 PM | Every time someone starts a thread about 4e, god kills a puppy. |
| MOTHdevil07-13-07, 01:38 PM | Glad to see such constructive posting from senior members of the board. |
| Toran_A_Sunder07-13-07, 02:04 PM | Glad to see such constructive posting from senior members of the board. Senior members of the board are so flippin tired of 4e and 4e related threads its rather difficult to take any of them seriously, I'm sure. |
| MOTHdevil07-13-07, 02:12 PM | I don't disagree, but does that really mean you have to post some nonsensical, uninspired crap in someone's thread? If you don't like, don't read or don't post, you know? It's like paying to go see band you don't like just so you can throw bottles at them. I just find it ironic, since the whole point of THIS thread was to provoke some creative response to those constant "oh nos, here comes 4E!" threads in the first place. |
| tankschmidt07-13-07, 02:41 PM | The problem with this is that the majority of the posters in the 4E discussions loathe the idea of shelling out more money for another edition of books, when the popular view is that 3.5 isn't fundamentally flawed. It's not surprising that the popular view on the WoTC boards is that D&D 3.x is all fine and dandy. These boards are frequented by gamers who own dozens of books for the current edition. I'm not in marketing or sales, but one would think that WoTC will aim their next generation product at a broader range of consumers and bank on the big-time DnDers bellying up for a new edition no matter what. I mostly skipped 3.x, so I'm pretty excited about the possibilty of the Wizards releasing something new. If it does what I want, I'll check it out. If it's just 3.75 or a collection of annual updates, I'll pass. And while I might be the exception on this forum, you can bet on lots of casual gamers (or at least casual D&Ders) being in the same boat. |
| BlaineTog07-13-07, 02:47 PM | I don't disagree, but does that really mean you have to post some nonsensical, uninspired crap in someone's thread? If you don't like, don't read or don't post, you know? It's like paying to go see band you don't like just so you can throw bottles at them. I just find it ironic, since the whole point of THIS thread was to provoke some creative response to those constant "oh nos, here comes 4E!" threads in the first place.Buying new rulebooks every year is much, much, much worse than a new edition. And, it's still speculation about 4e, speculation which likely will never get back to WotC, which is really really pointless. People, 4e is coming, but no one has even the slightest clue when. Give it a rest until WotC makes an announcement. |
| Rustmonster07-13-07, 02:56 PM | It's like paying to go see band you don't like just so you can throw bottles at them. What, you havn't done that before? |
| Stormonu07-13-07, 03:07 PM | In many ways, the annuals are already in existance, but a slightly different format. ToB was basically the annual that rewrites the fighter. Scoundrel included some rewrites (skill tricks to replace "underpowered" feats) as did Complete Mage (reserve feats). Magic Item compendium and Spell compedium are more than mere compilations; in some cases they alter the game as it stands now (augment crystals, the magic item tables and the redesigned magic item creation rules, for example). The PHBII is reworking/fix/supplement for several classes in some cases for higher-level play. The only difference from the true annuals you were suggesting is that they don't try to overtly ret-con rules. Instead, they attempt to work it into the frame of the existing game. The Polymorph errata is probably the closest they've come to an overhaul of the current system. I think the upcoming "Rules Compendium" is going to be very close to the annual you are thinking about. I'm betting its going to incorporate several changes that have occurred to the rules over the years much in the way you want the annuals to be laid out. For example, I'm sure its going to have the rules for Swift and Immediate actions in the game within its covers. |
| MOTHdevil07-13-07, 03:12 PM | Buying new rulebooks every year is much, much, much worse than a new edition. And, it's still speculation about 4e, speculation which likely will never get back to WotC, which is really really pointless. People, 4e is coming, but no one has even the slightest clue when. Give it a rest until WotC makes an announcement. So rather than an additional yearly update book you would bring to your session, you would rather swap out all your books? You don't think that continually making such a requirement will dilute the userbase? I'm not trying to be adversarial, I'm just curious as to the reasoning. Near as I can see it, an edition change will do a couple things: a) "Force" the hardcore base to update their books. This will surely be significantly less than the total userbase of the 3.5E, since not everyone (myself included) will be able or willing to pay for an update. b) As others have pointed out, for WOTC to grow their userbase, they will need to again change their appeal and marketing strategy. This potentially means altering the game to appeal to a "larger" demographic - i.e. dumbing it down, which surely won't appeal to many of the hardcore gamers willing to pay for the update. A no win-scenario on both fronts, UNLESS WOTC successfully appeals to a larger group of players heretofore unfamiliar with the game. To keep this on thread track, what-if 4E IS released as a substantial update, but instead is worked so that it CAN be revised with yearly annuals, so that effectively you're always playing 4E, albeit 4E 2008 codex, 2009 codex, etc. |
| MOTHdevil07-13-07, 03:17 PM | In many ways, the annuals are already in existance, but a slightly different format. ToB was basically the annual that rewrites the fighter. Scoundrel included some rewrites (skill tricks to replace "underpowered" feats) as did Complete Mage (reserve feats). Magic Item compendium and Spell compedium are more than mere compilations; in some cases they alter the game as it stands now (augment crystals, the magic item tables and the redesigned magic item creation rules, for example). The PHBII is reworking/fix/supplement for several classes in some cases for higher-level play. The only difference from the true annuals you were suggesting is that they don't try to overtly ret-con rules. Instead, they attempt to work it into the frame of the existing game. The Polymorph errata is probably the closest they've come to an overhaul of the current system. I think the upcoming "Rules Compendium" is going to be very close to the annual you are thinking about. I'm betting its going to incorporate several changes that have occurred to the rules over the years much in the way you want the annuals to be laid out. For example, I'm sure its going to have the rules for Swift and Immediate actions in the game within its covers. True. It's really marketing semantics. IMO, they should make a game that CAN effectively update in this fashion. Then they could avoid this whole nasty "edition" mess every time they need/want to update. As you pointed out, there isn't an overt ret-con, but that lack of ret-con leads to some weird consequences when they try to introduce radical ideas. |
| HellflameArcanite07-13-07, 03:31 PM | Did you completely ignore your number one reason? One reason Wizards does this is to make more money. I doubt you'll be able to talk them out of that. I don't exactly approve, but that's how it is. |
| MOTHdevil07-13-07, 03:58 PM | Did you completely ignore your number one reason? One reason Wizards does this is to make more money. I doubt you'll be able to talk them out of that. I don't exactly approve, but that's how it is. Stated in point one of the thread-start. Releasing annual, expected updates would effectively normalize WOTC's revenue stream and also help ensure against the potential consumer erosion that would come with a system-wide overhaul every few years. |
| Rustmonster07-13-07, 04:05 PM | So rather than an additional yearly update book you would bring to your session, you would rather swap out all your books? You don't think that continually making such a requirement will dilute the userbase? Think of it this way. If you have to buy an "annual" manual every year, that's fine for people who started when the edition came out. But then again, what if you came in a few years through? To keep up to date, a new player who started, say, 5 years after the start of the edition will have to buy 5 EXTRA books on top of the core books. And if I understand what you are suggesting, these arn't like splatbooks, these are actual changes in rules. So that means it is mandatory to buy them. That means that to have all three core books up to date, you will need 18 books to play. Yes, you can make the argument "but you don't HAVE to be up to date", but then again you can say that about a new edition. You don't have to move to 4E. To be up to date? Yes. But to play? No. I think what you are suggesting just adds a ton of new, non-optional to be up to date books to buy. |
| Kadasbrass07-13-07, 04:15 PM | Senior members of the board are so flippin tired of 4e and 4e related threads its rather difficult to take any of them seriously, I'm sure. Yet they choose to read the threads and then reply to them instead of just letting them die? Perhaps senior member of the boards need to take their own advise and make a cup of tea instead of reading or replying to 4th edition threads? |
| MOTHdevil07-13-07, 04:32 PM | Think of it this way. If you have to buy an "annual" manual every year, that's fine for people who started when the edition came out. But then again, what if you came in a few years through? To keep up to date, a new player who started, say, 5 years after the start of the edition will have to buy 5 EXTRA books on top of the core books. And if I understand what you are suggesting, these arn't like splatbooks, these are actual changes in rules. So that means it is mandatory to buy them. That means that to have all three core books up to date, you will need 18 books to play. Yes, you can make the argument "but you don't HAVE to be up to date", but then again you can say that about a new edition. You don't have to move to 4E. To be up to date? Yes. But to play? No. I think what you are suggesting just adds a ton of new, non-optional to be up to date books to buy. No... my concept wasn't explained right. Each yearly annual would effectively rewrite or expand the previous annual. Each updates the one before it, rather than adds just NEW material... Much in the same way WOTC explains "swift actions" or the "polymorph subschool" in every book that comes out now. I realize that potentially lies in an annual that is MASSIVE five or ten years down the road, but really, how many pages of needed rules updates would they actually come up with on a yearly basis? Likely not many. Surely not enough to exponentially increase the size of each annual. If the annual got to the point where it was too big to sell, they would then revise the core books appropriately, integrating the annual material - But the difference is it wouldn't be a "new" edition, since the people that were buying the annuals all along already would have that info. Effectively it's a "stealth" new edition, but it's not REALLY stealth, because the intentions of WOTC have been transparent and the means to update have been there the whole time. |
| Rustmonster07-13-07, 04:38 PM | No... my concept wasn't explained right. Each yearly annual would effectively rewrite or expand the previous annual. Each updates the one before it, rather than adds just NEW material... Much in the same way WOTC explains "swift actions" or the "polymorph subschool" in every book that comes out now. I realize that potentially lies in an annual that is MASSIVE five or ten years down the road, but really, how many pages of needed rules updates would they actually come up with on a yearly basis? Likely not many. Surely not enough to exponentially increase the size of each annual. If the annual got to the point where it was too big to sell, they would then revise the core books appropriately, integrating the annual material - But the difference is it wouldn't be a "new" edition, since the people that were buying the annuals all along already would have that info. Effectively it's a "stealth" new edition, but it's not REALLY stealth, because the intentions of WOTC have been transparent and the means to update have been there the whole time. Alright, so then you arn't screwing the new players, you are screwing the old players. They have to keep buying the newest core books EVERY YEAR. That is so many times worse than a new edition. Also, you pointed out: how many pages of needed rules updates would they actually come up with on a yearly basis? Not many. So why would they make new core books every year that have barely updated rules? And it still stands, if it has new rules that improve the game, people will still want it, but now they have to buy more core books. It doesn't matter that it is not "needed", soem people like to be totally up to date. Do you know what "non-needed" updates are called? Splatbooks. |
| MOTHdevil07-13-07, 05:04 PM | Alright, so then you arn't screwing the new players, you are screwing the old players. They have to keep buying the newest core books EVERY YEAR. That is so many times worse than a new edition. How is buying a single update book once a year the equivalent of buying new core books every year? I'm proposing a single, yearly update book. Eventually, if that update book becomes too large, THEN the changes become incorporated in the core books. But it's still not screwing anyone because the people that bought the update book last year wouldn't have to buy new core, since it's the same information. It works like this: Core books 2007 update 2008 update 2009 (which updates 2008) update 2010 (which updates 2009) Revised core (incorporating update 2010) Rinse, lather, repeat. :D What's the big deal? Everyone's happy. WOTC still makes money by producing new material. New gamers don't get confused. Existing gamers don't get screwed with an entire system overhaul. Simple. |
| Rustmonster07-13-07, 05:14 PM | WOTC could release a set ANNUAL update for the core books I intrepreted it as meaning one for each core book. If I am mistaken, sorry. But then again, the way WoTC does it now is this: No yearly required (yes, it's required. I'm saying for people who like to be up to date) update to buy. And that's basicly the diffrence. I don't want to buy a new update every year. PERIOD. And I don't understand your reasoning on this. No one knows when 4th edition is coming, but it's not for a long time. People who make big doomsday theories or spread rumors that this one third party company thinks it might come out are idiots, not the general base consumer. How would a new edition confuse new customers? It's three (likely) new core books you have to buy, compared to three core books, and then X many "updates" that may or may not have "needed" rules. I think core books confuse people less. The one biggest thing you don't seem to understand is that 4th edition is NOT just an "update" of 3.5, it's an OVERHAUL. It's almost like a new game. If they release "updates" for 3.5 every year or not, 4th editon will eventually come out either way. |
| Stormonu07-13-07, 05:25 PM | Battletech and Warhammer (40K) is probably the best example I can think of that does something similar to what I think you're trying to get at. For it to be successful, you would have to divorce the rules of the game from the playable material (in the way 40K handles it, with the rulebooks and codexes being seperate entities). Battletech just collects and reprints the rules in one updated manual every so often, but it is not the size and breadth of the D&D game. Consider what you'd have to do for D&D to have an annual update: Book or Books detailing Races, Classes, Skills, Feats, Spells, Magic Items and precreated monsters. A "Rules book" with the info of how you apply a race and class to a character, what the racial/class abilities do; how to advance a character and non class or race base (i.e., when you get a new feat, increase in stats and the like), Skill DCs, how to use a feat, how to cast spells and meaning of the various components of spells (school, subtype effects, etc.), how to create magic items and monsters, the effects of monster abilities and the like. It would take a lot of real work to figure out which would go where, and there would be likely some overlap (for example, what if they decided to overhaul feats gained through level advancement, or skill points per level for all the classes? That would ripple into all the premade creatures, and probably all the classes) |
| Stormonu07-13-07, 05:27 PM | I'm proposing a single, yearly update book. Eventually, if that update book becomes too large, THEN the changes become incorporated in the core books. But it's still not screwing anyone because the people that bought the update book last year wouldn't have to buy new core, since it's the same information. It works like this: Core books 2007 update 2008 update 2009 (which updates 2008) update 2010 (which updates 2009) Revised core (incorporating update 2010) Rinse, lather, repeat. What's the big deal? Everyone's happy. WOTC still makes money by producing new material. New gamers don't get confused. Existing gamers don't get screwed with an entire system overhaul. This is practically the way the production system is now... And it would cause huge confusion. DM: Okay new guy, what's that book? Player: PHB update 2009 DM: Uh, no - we're using Core PHB 2010. You can't use that book here. It's too out of date Player: Wha? The bookstore didn't even have that book on the shelf! How was I supposed to know to get that book. *Looks at DM's copy* And it costs $40! I just paid $80 for the Core PHB 2005 and update 2009 |
| MOTHdevil07-13-07, 05:43 PM | This is practically the way the production system is now... Perhaps, but it isn't explicitly published or marketed that way, which results in all of these chicken-sans-head 4E speculation threads. Is a yearly rulebook update that complicated? I don't see the need to divorce the "playable material" as you call it, from the rules. In my mind, this doesn't seem that hard. You're effectively producing something (I guess) like the SRD, which is your "core." This is combat, races, classes, and skills. Everything else (spells, feats, PrCs) is fluff, really, and doesn't require as meticulous an update. Guys that WANT to update can, and those that are fine with waiting a few years for the annual to be incorporated into the core books could do that too. Everything else is just rules-options, and would be sold and formated in that way. Maybe I'm being naive here. Perhaps this idea wouldn't work with 3.5, but if the eventual 4E is built with this "annual" idea in mind, it would allow for more expansion and flexibility. |
| MOTHdevil07-13-07, 05:45 PM | And it would cause huge confusion. DM: Okay new guy, what's that book? Player: PHB update 2009 DM: Uh, no - we're using Core PHB 2010. You can't use that book here. It's too out of date Yeah, but how's that different than all the complete, tome, and campaign books now? DM: Okay new guy, what's that book? Player: Tome of Battle DM: Uh, no - we're using Core PHB only. You can't use that book here. It's unbalanced |
| Stormonu07-13-07, 05:51 PM | I think the one thing you may be overlooking is the fact that not all groups update uniformly. Its quite possible for a single player to be in several games that incorporate different books and the like. One DM may be using the latest-greatest rule set. Another may be disgruntled with WotC and disallowing several books, or in the annual update model, using a book several editions old. This would put such players in a quandry Also, I added it to my earlier post as an edit but there is the possiblity of after-market confusion about which edition new players need to buy (especially when buying second-hand). I've run into the problem in 40K, when I found out I had an outdated codex book for my army. |
| MOTHdevil07-13-07, 06:01 PM | Also, I added it to my earlier post as an edit but there is the possiblity of after-market confusion about which edition new players need to buy (especially when buying second-hand). I've run into the problem in 40K, when I found out I had an outdated codex book for my army. Well, honestly I think that's part of a product marketing failure on GW's part. As convoluted as D&D books can be to a new-comer, I think that pales in comparison to GW stuff. I think we can all agree that as unscrupulous as WOTC's desire to make a profit is, GW's price hiking and start-up costs for FLGS and players alike make Warhammer extremely difficult to get into. I think if the D&D annuals were properly presented, either by coding, checklists, displays, ads, or whatever, the confusion surrounding what books are needed would be easily solved. You brought up some good points about different gamer groups, but I think it just comes down to the lowest common edition... What ever the DM is using, goes. It's unlikely a player will be lacking in an "older" annual, and even if that's the case, how hard is it to cross-reference someone else's book at the table. I played a 3.5 game for at least few months with my old 3.0 book and didn't have any real problems. |
| Von_Harbringer07-13-07, 06:03 PM | Okay just for the record... It's not a question where or not 4e is going to come out, it's a matter of when? WotC (Hasbro) needs to keep updating material not just to make money but to keep the product from going stale. Palladium stayed with their product. What happened is that those who played got older and started to drift away. There wasn't a new generation to replace the old. Effect they went out of business. Yes there are comparisons that DnD is becoming more mmoRPG-like. The product needs to adapt to the audience. Making changes will risk in loosing some of the traditional players but they will do it if they can bring in new players. If 4th comes out I will buy the books just like when 3.0 and 3.5 came out. In the grand scheme of things paying about $250 over a 4 year period isn't as bad as lets say paying $15 a month to play an mmoRPG. Thats my 2 cents :cool: |
| zorgling2507-13-07, 06:11 PM | How is buying a single update book once a year the equivalent of buying new core books every year? I'm proposing a single, yearly update book. Eventually, if that update book becomes too large, THEN the changes become incorporated in the core books. But it's still not screwing anyone because the people that bought the update book last year wouldn't have to buy new core, since it's the same information. It works like this: Core books 2007 update 2008 update 2009 (which updates 2008) update 2010 (which updates 2009) Revised core (incorporating update 2010) Rinse, lather, repeat. :D What's the big deal? Everyone's happy. WOTC still makes money by producing new material. New gamers don't get confused. Existing gamers don't get screwed with an entire system overhaul. Simple. While i personally have no problems with this proposal, I think this may present a small problem for crucial (well, maybe not crucial, but certainly important) portion of the D&D gaming audience: minors. I began playing D&D when I was in about 6th grade. I didn't have a whole lot of money to spend on the hobby, so I was pleased that I could play the whole game with 3 core rulebooks, no more money spent. Heck, when Wizards switched to 3.5, my group played the game out of the 3.0 rulebooks and a couple printed pages from the 3.5 SRD. Thinking back, I can't imagine how annoyed I would be if, after saving up about 90 bucks on the core books, I'd have to spend 20-30 more each subsequent year to buy an update to the books. |
| MOTHdevil07-13-07, 06:13 PM | Okay just for the record... It's not a question where or not 4e is going to come out, it's a matter of when? WotC (Hasbro) needs to keep updating material not just to make money but to keep the product from going stale. Palladium stayed with their product. What happened is that those who played got older and started to drift away. There wasn't a new generation to replace the old. Effect they went out of business. Yes there are comparisons that DnD is becoming more mmoRPG-like. The product needs to adapt to the audience. Making changes will risk in loosing some of the traditional players but they will do it if they can bring in new players. If 4th comes out I will buy the books just like when 3.0 and 3.5 came out. In the grand scheme of things paying about $250 over a 4 year period isn't as bad as lets say paying $15 a month to play an mmoRPG. Thats my 2 cents :cool: Well, Palladium didn't continue to support their fantasy game. IIRC, Palladium (the company's) focus shifted to Robotech and Rifts. If Palladium continued to keep their product in the spotlight, rather than throw a cheesy same-every-month-ad in Dragon magazine, they might have adopted some new players over time. You can keep your base model and still attract new customers. Ford Taurus. Dunkin Donuts. Star Wars. Nothing really changed about these products, just the marketing and packaging. All continued to do (and in some case are still) well after their introduction to the marketplace. Palladium's failing wasn't so much the game, as it was their failure to allocate marketing and advertising capital outside an extremely narrow channel. |
| MOTHdevil07-13-07, 06:16 PM | Thinking back, I can't imagine how annoyed I would be if, after saving up about 90 bucks on the core books, I'd have to spend 20-30 more each subsequent year to buy an update to the books. No one is forcing anyone to buy the annual every year. If they can afford the rules options books, then they can afford the annual. If they can't afford the rules options books, then they're not buying the new material that the annual takes advantage of anyway - they simply don't need it. Think of it like a computer upgrade. If you can't afford to buy WOW, it doesn't really matter if your computer is too slow to run it. |
| zorgling2507-13-07, 06:23 PM | No one is forcing anyone to buy the annual every year. If they can afford the rules options books, then they can afford the annual. If they can't afford the rules options books, then they're not buying the new material that the annual takes advantage of anyway - they simply don't need it. Think of it like a computer upgrade. If you can't afford to buy WOW, it doesn't really matter if your computer is too slow to run it. I'm slightly confused as to your proposal now... Are your "update books" updates to the core rules, or are they effectively splatbooks (e.g. Incarnum, Psionics, ToB, etc.)? |
| shadzar07-13-07, 10:46 PM | So how about this...? Annuals. Rather than release a new edition every few years and risk diluting or driving off the player-base, WOTC could release a set ANNUAL update for the core books, and perhaps one for other popular lines as well (Completes, Tomes, FR, Eb, Minis). This would address not only errata, but also comprehensive updates to a rule-set many of us regard as mostly solid. This would be a single yearly book addressing changes, rather than a reboot of the entire line. Welcome to 20+ years worth of Games Workshop thinking where a warhammer army consists of about $300 wrth for starters, plus the army rule book at $20, plaus the main rulesbook at $50, plus the supplement rulebooks are $20 each as they come out, plus a subscription to White Dwarf @ $4-6 per month, plus a subscription to Citadel Journal at another $4-6 per month....yeah, i don't think so. the biggest problems in all these games is the company straining for continuity. while the RPGA may seem like a cute idea for those who want to play by the book, i am sure that there are MANY players who have taken a new set of rules and play by them rather than strictly by the book. this means that D&D can't be founded in one general theory, but is based on the players. so altering the rules every so often will not make the game any better. with warhammer it is bad enough to pay for both the models and the rules (which change yearly for both :mad: ). so why would someone want to keep shelling out money for things they don't need. this was a problem TSR had and why the splat books so many people hate came into existance. it didn't cause to change the rules, but give more material from which to draw creative juices. making new editions all the time does seem like a WotC standard and its cute little way of forcing people to constantly buy product as derive from the MtG 2.0 side of the game, where it does make a bit more even footing for people to play the game that could not get previous printed cards so everyone plays with what is in print, but the constant buying drains a wallet fast. and then you have no money left to play tournament anyway... wherein D&D is not that type of game. it has lulls in sales as it should when new things arise. and it doesnt cost to play once you have the rules, just supplies like paper, dice, etc. fixing the rules should not cost money either. it you buy something broken you should be able to "return the defective product" for one that work properly. such as DDM you can do as well as MtG. so the errata should be free as it is online, but that isn't that accessible to every as people might think. so charging a nominal fe for a compiled errata book wouldn't be that bad. i think if WotC wanted to make more money without completely changing the rules, unless they are that broken, then they should start making other things rather than books. i mean how well do character sheets sell when you can photocopy them. how about other things. as silly as it sound they could sell engraved pencils. it doesn't cost that much to do, and they already exists. they could be sold in anystore like Walmart, etc and even become tax-free at times of school supply buying etc. have chessex or some other dice manufacturer make some D&D dice. (not dragon dice). but for dice collectors having dice with a D&D logo on it would be fun to have. as i said not many people need to buy umpteen character sheet books since you can photocopy them, and they are even available online, how about other forms. either for DM or player use. i recall The Armory had death certificates for RPG games at one time. the most interesting thing about WotC trying to claim some of the money out there is these odd thing i talk about like forms, could be made by people using the OGL if they include whatever is allowed, or otherwise they could be made for general RPG use and not even need the OGL. so while it helps promote the game, it has been a double edged sword for WotC. maybe producing variant type of books for people would also help. i lvoed the old MMC where you had binders full of monsters on single sheets. you could easily sort them how you wanted to. the other compendiums like wizards, priest etc were great, but kind of made the PHB obsolete cause you never really looked at it anymore. i always liked the idea about multipl PHBs. one standard PHB for all characters like exists now. then where the splat-books came in form old, but have them actual PHBs based ont he classes. one for fighters which removes the spells from it to make it cheaper, etc. sorry but this post is incomplete or my ideas sicne i fear i am running out of space and fingers getting tired, but i will continue with more ideas in a bit (read sometime in the future but not within the next hour or so.) |
| TheDarkLord07-14-07, 12:50 AM | Every time someone starts a thread about 4e, god kills a puppy. .... I hate cats, therefor kittens, I don't mind the killing of kitten's, but puppies... someone's going to get shot for this :D. *I used to have a bumper sticker on my supped up 75 ford that read "If you are missing your cat, look in my treads". You wouldn't believe how many women flipped me off... |
| BlaineTog07-14-07, 03:52 AM | So rather than an additional yearly update book you would bring to your session, you would rather swap out all your books? You don't think that continually making such a requirement will dilute the userbase? I'm not trying to be adversarial, I'm just curious as to the reasoning. Near as I can see it, an edition change will do a couple things: a) "Force" the hardcore base to update their books. This will surely be significantly less than the total userbase of the 3.5E, since not everyone (myself included) will be able or willing to pay for an update. b) As others have pointed out, for WOTC to grow their userbase, they will need to again change their appeal and marketing strategy. This potentially means altering the game to appeal to a "larger" demographic - i.e. dumbing it down, which surely won't appeal to many of the hardcore gamers willing to pay for the update. A no win-scenario on both fronts, UNLESS WOTC successfully appeals to a larger group of players heretofore unfamiliar with the game. To keep this on thread track, what-if 4E IS released as a substantial update, but instead is worked so that it CAN be revised with yearly annuals, so that effectively you're always playing 4E, albeit 4E 2008 codex, 2009 codex, etc.Games go through editions. It's what they do. Sheesh. |
| Illithid_Tentacles07-14-07, 04:45 AM | WotC took D&D and turned it into D&D: The Gathering. |
| tankschmidt07-14-07, 06:14 AM | WotC took D&D and turned it into D&D: The Gathering. Amen! |
| Rustmonster07-14-07, 09:17 AM | WotC took D&D and turned it into D&D: The Gathering. How so? I don't remember having to buy boosters |
| Dontgothere07-14-07, 09:58 AM | Well, Palladium didn't continue to support their fantasy game. IIRC, Palladium (the company's) focus shifted to Robotech and Rifts. If Palladium continued to keep their product in the spotlight, rather than throw a cheesy same-every-month-ad in Dragon magazine, they might have adopted some new players over time. You can keep your base model and still attract new customers. Ford Taurus. Dunkin Donuts. Star Wars. Nothing really changed about these products, just the marketing and packaging. All continued to do (and in some case are still) well after their introduction to the marketplace. Palladium's failing wasn't so much the game, as it was their failure to allocate marketing and advertising capital outside an extremely narrow channel. Well said. All of the big companies keep their base products the same and are much more of a marketing force than "gaming companies" that release 40 new editions in ten years. Sarcastically speaking. Last thing I heard many of these 40 edition gaming companies are in a slump. |
| Rustmonster07-14-07, 10:07 AM | Well said. All of the big companies keep their base products the same and are much more of a marketing force than "gaming companies" that release 40 new editions in ten years. Sarcastically speaking. Last thing I heard many of these 40 edition gaming companies are in a slump. No, a gaming company is a "marketing force", as is every company. Their aim is to make money by supplying a game. D&D, under WoTC, has had one edition and one revision in 8 years. People make it seem like they make a new edition every weekend. Especially you. What is your beef already? |
| shadzar07-14-07, 10:44 AM | D&D, under WoTC, has had one edition and one revision in 8 years. People make it seem like they make a new edition every weekend. its what they do with Magic almost. and with 26 years worth of the game behind them you would think in the 7 (yes seven years as 3.0 came out in 2000 and this is only 2007) years youw wouldn't need a full revision. at least in the early days it was because the game was a new concept. guess that is what happenes when you fix something that isn't broken, or try to einvent the wheel. new editions does not make people want to play when things like core books to play costing $100 in this time of inflation. especially when there is nothing wrong with the older books. it could only lead to flooding the market with poor product and then no one wanting to play with the new stuff, causing the game to fail below allowed limit of sales, and with Hasbro meaning it gets vaulted never to see the light of day again. on that thought i say here is the best alternative to 4th edition. don't buy it. there are already 8 editions of the game out there so there are plenty to choose from. maybe making a new edition just isnt the right thing to do. |
| Bob Loblaw07-14-07, 12:10 PM | Well said. All of the big companies keep their base products the same and are much more of a marketing force than "gaming companies" that release 40 new editions in ten years. Sarcastically speaking. Last thing I heard many of these 40 edition gaming companies are in a slump. I see you ignored the other thread you started. I proved this wrong once already. Also, let's be very honest, DnD is in its 3rd edition. TSR had started 3rd edition before WotC purchased them. WotC finally published 3rd and then put out one, that's singular, one update. The rules saw a bunch of minor changes, but the differences between 3.0 and 3.5 are not all that great. For the most part, the two systems are compatible. So WotC has put out one edition in 10 years. One edition, maybe two if you want to claim 3.5 is a completely different edition, is a far cry from 40 (or one edition every 5 to 10 years). If you want to be taken seriously at all, why not use real numbers instead of making them up and hiding behind "sarcasm?" There is a significant difference between one edition in 10 years and one edition every 3 months. |
| Von_Harbringer07-14-07, 01:18 PM | Ok here is my complaint to this whole situation. :twocents: I remember in the mid to late 90's when TSR was going under. They had a questionaire asking the players about any changes to the game. It asked about different systems, how they like the duel/multi class system, such and so forth. Obviously they had problems and were looking to public for answers, they wanted to know what they wanted so they could make changes to the game. If anyone is to blame its gamers. Seems like we expect companies to run themselves out of business for us, sure we'll mourn the day when they do and call the new owners a bunch of vultures. For crying out loud I've heard this all before from friends that played 2nd. How much 3rd sucks and its not true DnD. For those that believe in evolution you either adapt or you die. People say that "Well if they make changes they lost my business." You know what that may be true but businesses don't just cater to a single person or group of people. They look at the big picture, if they tee off some die-hard DnD 3rd players so be it. As long as they can recoup the lost players with new players and then some. They are not going to make money by just selling adventures and releasing the occasional expansion book (that is what TSR did). Then people will say that "They must believe gamers will buy anything as long as they put the DnD sticker on it." They will release a new edition and recycle the whole process over again. Some people call it greed I call it company survival. It's selfish that anyone thinks that a company should go bankrupt just because "I'm not going to buy something new that is just fine the way it is." :tantrum: :banghead: :censored: :hoppingma |
| MOTHdevil07-14-07, 05:48 PM | Ok... Let's try this. Clearly, no one seems to like my idea - which is fine, since it was merely an idea... I'll be the first to admit I'm the type of guy that throws LOTS of ideas at the wall rather than putting all my eggs in one basket. If my idea isn't sound, so be it. I only need to direct you to some of my other posts to confirm this. :D That said, let's try something else: I've seen plenty of posts about why people would or would not buy a 4E, but I've seen VERY few that actually support 4E and an entire system reboot as a needed concept. Saying you'll buy 4E when it comes out because you want continually updated product is a far cry from wanting a 4E in the first place. Near as I can tell, the general feeling here is "we know WOTC will put out a 4E at some point. Maybe next year. Maybe after 2010. We don't think there needs to be a 4E, but we'll deal with it because WOTC is a company and companies exist to make money." So the focus here, at least from WOTC's perspective, isn't so much how to increase the consumer base, so much as how to continue making money out of the one they already have. In my mind, that's just bad corporate planning. In the long run, the well could potentially dry up. This same phenomenon happens with movie and book sequels, especially when the same ideas keep getting recycled. For every Harry Potter, there's ten Police Academy or Alien series. In some ways it feels that WOTC spins their treads. To use the Palladium example above, the reason Palladium's fantasy RPG failed was because they stopped trying to diversify their line or appeal to a larger base. They stuck with the same group and figured they could keep producing revenue from that, hopefully growing slowly over time... Sound familiar? Not much different than what WOTC (or TSR) is/was doing by producing new editions, ad nauseum Complete books, 30+ pages of "affiliations" in said Complete books, or Monster Manuals loaded with classed monsters. Granted, WOTC has a much bigger budget than Palladium, but outside of Gamergeek World, who are they really appealing to on the marketing side of things? The evidence to me supports that WOTC is spending much more resources into mining the existing revenue source rather than trying to expand it. This mindset can (but not always) produce subpar product. Very often it produces consumer backlash. If WOTC wants to continue increasing revenue, IMO they should be focusing on growing their user base, not just mining the current one. Concentrate on appealing to a larger demographic, not by making a newer "accessible" edition and a lengthy system reboot, but by diversifying their presentation and marketing for the product they already have. |
| shadzar07-14-07, 08:46 PM | They look at the big picture, if they tee off some die-hard DnD 3rd players so be it. As long as they can recoup the lost players with new players and then some. So they are changing their name to Microsoft of the Coast? where money comes first, and loyalty to customers is something unknown, as well as putting out bad products that need constant fixing. which means the consumer must pay for all repairs of said product. at least WotC customer service unlike many other companies will work one-on-one with customers to resolve any issues with problematic/defective products. sadly however they no longer include the games rules with MtG so how do they expect new player to learn it? :confused: but do they really give anything to those people who kept the gave alive so many years by always buying things before it came into WotC hands? that is one of the biggest problem many 2nd and earlier editions players have with WotC is that they scrapped all support for older editions. the little PDFs of older books was a nice gesture to say "oh yeah, people still play that huh?" but it shouldn't be that hard to bring out material for all editions. otherwise the idea behind not liking any conceivable 4.0 version comes from past experience in that WotC had thrown out older editions with 3.0. When 3.5 came out the support for 3.0 was dropped. Therefore with any 4.0 edition it means again the previous edition will no longer be supported. that could possibly even affect other games as well. DDM, the OGL, and SRD also come into mind. what if any 4th edition of d&D is not conencted to an OGL. it could come from trying to reclaim profits from people who made things under these licenses and are making more money than WotC. if the company shows no support for its customers, then why should the customers support the company and its games? |
| Von_Harbringer07-14-07, 09:14 PM | So they are changing their name to Microsoft of the Coast? Cute... :rolleyes: I suppose you still use windows 95 because you refuse to update to the newer versions. Because, you know "Why fix something that isn't broken", right? Even Linux updates their O/S periodically. |
| shadzar07-14-07, 09:20 PM | Cute... :rolleyes: I suppose you still use windows 95 because you refuse to update to the newer versions. Because, you know "Why fix something that isn't broken", right? Even Linux updates their O/S periodically. wow you mean there have been 92 newer editions of windows? wow i am still using windows 3.0. i did hear something about a windows 3.1 i think, but i doubt it is really worth trying. :rolleyes: |
| Von_Harbringer07-14-07, 09:27 PM | wow you mean there have been 92 newer editions of windows? wow i am still using windows 3.0. i did hear something about a windows 3.1 i think, but i doubt it is really worth trying. :rolleyes: Now that's funny :heehee :rofl: |
| Kadasbrass07-14-07, 09:33 PM | D&D the Gathering? I wouldn't think so. Last I checked you don't win the game by having the deepest pocket book... Thou I guess it close to that sometimes... You can make a decent character with only one book, a really good character with two or three books. I would call it DnD the Gathering when they give books different rarities and let market forces play around with price. Or when only the last 6 books are legal in game play (aka Type 2 in mtg), thou then again I guess that would be 4th edition right there... Sigh, people keep making a fuse about 4th edition. And their just wasting their time and you know why? Because when it comes out most people will keep playing their current 3.5 (or earlier) material. Theres plenty of it out there now that the lack of future material shouldn't be an issue. The lack of new monsters don't matter anymore since after awhile you can pull out an older book and surprise the players with a monster they used to know but have forgotten. The lack of new classes won't matter either since there is enough of them to make a new character each month with a different class and not having to fear repeating a class for the first 3 years and then some. Lack of new adventures won't be an issue since their been a lack of them till only an year ago... The ending of 3.5 and the beginning of 4th means nothing since there is plenty of 3.5 to last a lifetime. There enough in there for us old timers to make use out of, and if need something new to spice up your game just buy a book you didn't get in 3.5 yet or pick up something online from the countless of sources. On the flip side of the coin 4th edition will not solve any problems since it will create as many, if not more, new problems for every solution it creates for the problems 3.5 had. If future editions had the ability to solve problems then 4th edition, nor 3.5 or even 3rd edition, would of been required. The only thing it will do is start the game over for the first here, without dms having to worry about players finding some broken combo using material from 22 different books. After those first 12 months its just back to normal sadly. |
| BlaineTog07-15-07, 01:58 AM | I've seen plenty of posts about why people would or would not buy a 4E, but I've seen VERY few that actually support 4E and an entire system reboot as a needed concept. Saying you'll buy 4E when it comes out because you want continually updated product is a far cry from wanting a 4E in the first place.Here's one reason: 4e will, presumeably, be better. So the focus here, at least from WOTC's perspective, isn't so much how to increase the consumer base, so much as how to continue making money out of the one they already have. In my mind, that's just bad corporate planning.Which is why that's probably not their only goal. Every company wants to keep making money out of its user base. If a company doesn't do that, it's going to find it extremely hard to stay in business. After all, there's that saying: "It takes months to find a customer and seconds to lose one." WotC, therefore, will create 4 while keeping in mind that they want the old players to transfer over. That said, companies also generally want to increase their user base. After all, WotC is run by business men; that's why they were able to make the D&D machine pump out all these books, rather than become gaming myth after TST's demise. I see no reason for WotC to be uninterested in increasing their user base. |
| MOTHdevil07-15-07, 10:53 AM | Here's one reason: 4e will, presumeably, be better. Windows Vista, anyone? New Coke? Star Trek sequels? You can presume it will be better, and hopefully it will be, but are "new editions" of product always considered superior? Certainly not. It should always be assumed that the root goal for a new edition is to boost sagging sales, not address fundamental problems. To WOTC's credit (and most game companies in general), the concept of a new edition is also frequently used to "fix" things, but that's a byproduct of the main point. That said, companies also generally want to increase their user base. After all, WotC is run by business men; that's why they were able to make the D&D machine pump out all these books, rather than become gaming myth after TST's demise. I see no reason for WotC to be uninterested in increasing their user base. No, you're right. I think my point didn't come across correctly. Sure, WOTC wants to increase their base, but I don't think a system reboot is the proper way to do it. It's a very artificial concept, since it's hard to compare it to other reboots. With computer software, one of the reasons we keep seeing new editions of Windows is to take advantage of the superior hardware coming out of the industry. There's a synergy there. With tabletop games, though, the need is artificially created. The progression is stagnant. No outside company or market is driving WOTC to create "newer and better" editions - it's almost entirely driven by their sole need to continue a revenue stream. Again, there's nothing wrong with this idea. Money is the purpose for corporate existence. But the idea that a new "edition" is needed in order to spur growth seems flawed, to me. Especially when that development money could be better put towards product placement. To use an analogy, new editions of a tabletop game are more similar to "New Coke" than they are to "Windows Vista." And when the depth and breadth of the product line is as huge as 3.5E is, IMO, WOTC could seriously risk losing much of their existing user base with a total switch over. Worse, unless they plan a significant change in how they present, market, and target a potential 4E, they could end up in a situation that alienates new players. I don't envy WOTC's sales and marketing departments. This has got to be an interesting challenge for them. |
| Rustmonster07-15-07, 11:19 AM | Windows Vista, anyone? New Coke? Star Trek sequels? Hey, I liked TNG. |
| MOTHdevil07-15-07, 12:00 PM | Hey, I liked TNG. It was a broad analogy. ;) I was referring more to the movie series and the craptucular shows following DS9. |
| Bob Loblaw07-15-07, 12:09 PM | Windows Vista, anyone? New Coke? Star Trek sequels? All versions of Windows are bad with their first release. New Coke actually was better in taste tests, people are just resistant to change. Star Trek sequels all lasted longer than the original series. The movies were bad-good-bad-good, etc. For some reason, most of the even numbered movies were good while the odd numbered ones were not. You can presume it will be better, and hopefully it will be, but are "new editions" of product always considered superior? Certainly not. The purpose of creating a new edition would be to make it better. Of course some things will be better for some people and not others, but so far every edition of DnD has actually been better than the previous edition(s). It should always be assumed that the root goal for a new edition is to boost sagging sales, not address fundamental problems. To WOTC's credit (and most game companies in general), the concept of a new edition is also frequently used to "fix" things, but that's a byproduct of the main point. I believe that the root goal is to keep people buying the product. The method to accomplish that is to improve/fix things. The two go together. If the only goal was to make money, there are plenty of ways they can accomplish this without making a new edition. No, you're right. I think my point didn't come across correctly. Sure, WOTC wants to increase their base, but I don't think a system reboot is the proper way to do it. It has worked so far every time. It has worked with other games as well. It's a very artificial concept, since it's hard to compare it to other reboots. With computer software, one of the reasons we keep seeing new editions of Windows is to take advantage of the superior hardware coming out of the industry. There's a synergy there. With tabletop games, though, the need is artificially created. The progression is stagnant. No outside company or market is driving WOTC to create "newer and better" editions - it's almost entirely driven by their sole need to continue a revenue stream. Artificial or not, there is a need now. I don't think there is much need for a new edition of the game at this time. I also am willing to see what changes they propose if they do decide to make changes. Again, there's nothing wrong with this idea. Money is the purpose for corporate existence. But the idea that a new "edition" is needed in order to spur growth seems flawed, to me. Especially when that development money could be better put towards product placement. What a new edition would do is have those who did not switch to 3.X look at the new rule set (at least those with an open mind). It would look different from the previous edition so it would stand out on the shelf, potentially bringing in new players with a shiny new cover. Those who switch over will learn the rules and introduce new gamers at conventions and game stores to the game. There will be those who do not buy the game, but they will be in the minority. It has been like this with every edition so far. As long as the new edition is good, it will make the company more money than the old edition. To use an analogy, new editions of a tabletop game are more similar to "New Coke" than they are to "Windows Vista." And when the depth and breadth of the product line is as huge as 3.5E is, IMO, WOTC could seriously risk losing much of their existing user base with a total switch over. Worse, unless they plan a significant change in how they present, market, and target a potential 4E, they could end up in a situation that alienates new players. We've heard this before and it has yet to be proven true. We heard this with the transition between 1st and 2nd. We heard this with the transition form 2nd to 3rd. We heard this from 3rd to 3.5. It has yet to actually come true. If the system is good enough, people will switch. I don't envy WOTC's sales and marketing departments. This has got to be an interesting challenge for them. I think it may be easier than you think. It's all in the product and advertising. This is one of the biggest reasons why we will have plenty of notice that a new edition is on the horizon. Springing it on the community will cause all kinds of problems and confusion to the point that people would give up on the game in frustration, especially new players who buy their books from book stores instead of game stores. They won't necessarily know the difference between 4th edition and 3.5's Tome of Magic. |
| Kelwyn07-15-07, 12:34 PM | How is buying a single update book once a year the equivalent of buying new core books every year? I'm proposing a single, yearly update book. Eventually, if that update book becomes too large, THEN the changes become incorporated in the core books. But it's still not screwing anyone because the people that bought the update book last year wouldn't have to buy new core, since it's the same information. It works like this: Core books 2007 update 2008 update 2009 (which updates 2008) update 2010 (which updates 2009) Revised core (incorporating update 2010) Rinse, lather, repeat. :D What's the big deal? Everyone's happy. WOTC still makes money by producing new material. New gamers don't get confused. Existing gamers don't get screwed with an entire system overhaul. Simple. Somehow I have to think of EA Sports FIFA/Madden/NBA/whateversport 'year' ... paying full price to get mainly minor improvements just to get even more $$$ |
| MOTHdevil07-15-07, 01:06 PM | All versions of Windows are bad with their first release. New Coke actually was better in taste tests, people are just resistant to change. Star Trek sequels all lasted longer than the original series. The movies were bad-good-bad-good, etc. For some reason, most of the even numbered movies were good while the odd numbered ones were not. Possibly true, but it doesn't change the fact that the longevity of New Coke was poor and it caused a bit of a marketing issue for Coke at the time. And Star Trek movies have all done increasingly worse box office since First Contact. Nemesis might have well just gone straight to DVD. And honestly, "good" is subjective there, since I think ALL TNG movies were middle-level, at best, despite that I think TNG actually had a better group of actors and characters. The purpose of creating a new edition would be to make it better. I respectfully and adamantly disagree. New editions or "new and improved" product are designed to increase and/or continue revenue. All other reasons are second-tier at best, and you're deluding yourself if you think WOTC would actually go through the rigors of a 4E for the main purpose of making their user base all warm and fuzzy. New editions come about to make money. I believe that the root goal is to keep people buying the product. The method to accomplish that is to improve/fix things. The two go together. But they don't. Consumer history has shown that companies typically introduce changes to product to increase their finances. Nothing more. This is why there is corn syrup in nearly everything. This is why "improved packaging" typically has smaller volume - yet they charge the same amount. This is why Apple is still in business and people keep buying iPods, despite DRM and superior and cheaper hardware out there. All of these things are done under the guise of increasing consumer experience, but that is second issue to the main goal of increasing product margin. If the only goal was to make money, there are plenty of ways they can accomplish this without making a new edition. In that, I totally agree, but IMO they're not doing that properly, which is why the loyal consumer base gets sacked with a new edition. The signs are all over the place. WOTC SHOULD be appealing to groups outside the comic/game/CCG avenues, but primarily they don't. If you're a prospective new player, there SHOULD be an easy way to figure out what D&D products to start with, but there isn't. You shouldn't have to rely on people that already know how to play to teach you how the game is played. The "girl" market is effectively non-existent, short of that paper-back due out shortly. Marketing appeals to the "Harry Potter" demographic remain untouched. There doesn't seem to be any attempt to branch D&D into a mainstream acceptable form of recreation. It's STILL a geek game. It is only through mere luck (CCG via Pokemon and the mainstream growth of anime and fantasy genres in general) that D&D has been able to go along for the ride. That can only last for so long. It has worked so far every time. It has worked with other games as well. True, but the market is only so big. Changing editions is not the answer for growing your market. And I'm telling you, with a line as BIG as 3.5 is, it's asking for trouble, unless WOTC plans on a marketing blitz designed to hit outside the gamer world. Imagine how confusing it would be NOW to be a new player if/when 4E pops up. 4e's entire presentation will have to be substantially different. Artificial or not, there is a need now. I don't think there is much need for a new edition of the game at this time. I also am willing to see what changes they propose if they do decide to make changes. True. Maybe there is. My 3.0/3.5 rules knowledge is just a hair or two above amateur. But I think this trick of a system reboot is only going to work for so long. If/when 4E is presented, WOTC should make damn sure it's more easily revisable and expandable than what's there now. I don't think a 5.0 will be an option for them. What a new edition would do is have those who did not switch to 3.X look at the new rule set (at least those with an open mind). Seriously, though... how many people IS that? Certainly not enough to count on to absorb your development and marketing costs. You mean to tell me there's THOUSANDS of non-3.X players out there, waiting or interested in a 4.0? The only reason I play 3.5 now at all is because my friends were already playing it when I moved back home. If I had my way, we'd probably have just continued using our 2E books, but they already had hundreds of dollars invested in 3.X, so that's what I deferred to. I STILL have only bought the base minimum books to play the game. It would look different from the previous edition so it would stand out on the shelf, potentially bringing in new players with a shiny new cover. Those who switch over will learn the rules and introduce new gamers at conventions and game stores to the game. There will be those who do not buy the game, but they will be in the minority. It has been like this with every edition so far. As long as the new edition is good, it will make the company more money than the old edition. Yeah, but therein lies the problem. Continually relying on the gamer base to feed itself could eventually backfire. They NEED to market to other demographics, especially with the erosion that MMORPGs are causing in the tabletop industry. IF, and it's a big if, IF WOTC did it right, potentially EVERY person out there with a WOW or Everquest account is a tabletop player. I don't know the current WOW subscription, but I'm willing to bet it's more than 6 mil at this point. And that doesn't even include Everquest. I'm pretty certain 6 mil is more than the current actively buying D&D player base. This is all marketing capital and company focus that a system overhaul is likely siphoning from. We've heard this before and it has yet to be proven true. We heard this with the transition between 1st and 2nd. We heard this with the transition form 2nd to 3rd. We heard this from 3rd to 3.5. It has yet to actually come true. If the system is good enough, people will switch. Yeah, but 1E and 2E were largely compatible. Especially the same for 3.0 and 3.5. I doubt 4E will have that compatibility. It's not an issue of if the system is good enough. It's an issue with how much of a value it actually is. There's a stoopid amount of 3.5E material out there, most of which my group owns in some way or form. These guys will be hard-pressed to switch, and I suspect that's true for a lot of people.... This is all sort of the logic behind my OP. I was trying to come up with a solution that could effectively appease everyone. I think it may be easier than you think. It's all in the product and advertising. Trust me, it ain't. ;) If they're doing their job right, these guys got a hell of a workload ahead of them. Ugh..... 1:15. I still haven't done my writing work today. Curse you, Bob. |
| Dracomortis07-15-07, 01:11 PM | Somehow I have to think of EA Sports FIFA/Madden/NBA/whateversport 'year' ... paying full price to get mainly minor improvements just to get even more $$$ "For Madden 2008, we have a special surprise for you: two players have changed teams, one has retired, and Dallas has a new quarterback! Aren't you excited?" |
| Bob Loblaw07-15-07, 06:26 PM | Possibly true, but it doesn't change the fact that the longevity of New Coke was poor and it caused a bit of a marketing issue for Coke at the time. And Star Trek movies have all done increasingly worse box office since First Contact. Nemesis might have well just gone straight to DVD. And honestly, "good" is subjective there, since I think ALL TNG movies were middle-level, at best, despite that I think TNG actually had a better group of actors and characters. New Coke had to deal with some really tough issues. I don't know for sure, but I have a feeling that we say New Coke reintroduced in their other products like Ok Cola. I try to ignore the Star Trek movies starting with Generations. I have to say that I have not really liked any of them. First Contact was ok at best, and that was because I enjoyed the humor. Nemesis should never have been made. But this brings us way off topic. I respectfully and adamantly disagree. New editions or "new and improved" product are designed to increase and/or continue revenue. All other reasons are second-tier at best, and you're deluding yourself if you think WOTC would actually go through the rigors of a 4E for the main purpose of making their user base all warm and fuzzy. New editions come about to make money. I wasn't trying to imply anything different. I was just trying to say that if they do work on a new edition, it would not be a step backwards. They would, hopefully, avoid things like weird formulas (THAC0, negative AC, arbitrary "balancing" experience point tables, etc.). Hopefully they would clean up some rules (Grappling comes immediately to mind). But they don't. Consumer history has shown that companies typically introduce changes to product to increase their finances. Nothing more. This is why there is corn syrup in nearly everything. This is why "improved packaging" typically has smaller volume - yet they charge the same amount. This is why Apple is still in business and people keep buying iPods, despite DRM and superior and cheaper hardware out there. All of these things are done under the guise of increasing consumer experience, but that is second issue to the main goal of increasing product margin. Of course they do. This was what I was trying to say. They want to make money. The means to do so is the new edition. When I said get people to buy the product, I was trying to say that if people stop buying then WotC needs to figure out why and address that. I know that TSR had the problem of convoluted and unplaytested material combined with inferior physical products. WotC is not dealing with these same issues in the same degree. I will probably never own an i-anything. I think they are overpriced and are more of a status symbol than anything else. The product may be good, but I won't fork over several hundred dollars for something that I can get for less than half that price that does what I want it to do. I'm not a "good" consumer for most companies. I judge the product against itself and the competition rather than what the media and the rest of the world wants from me. In that, I totally agree, but IMO they're not doing that properly, which is why the loyal consumer base gets sacked with a new edition. The signs are all over the place. WOTC SHOULD be appealing to groups outside the comic/game/CCG avenues, but primarily they don't. If you're a prospective new player, there SHOULD be an easy way to figure out what D&D products to start with, but there isn't. You shouldn't have to rely on people that already know how to play to teach you how the game is played. I agree completely. They should be doing what they can to have more product placement in movies, TV, and commercials. They should be putting ads in magazines other than gaming magazines, gamers already know about DnD. They should see about teaming up with Hasbro and talk about the Family Game Night including DnD. The "girl" market is effectively non-existent, short of that paper-back due out shortly. Marketing appeals to the "Harry Potter" demographic remain untouched. There doesn't seem to be any attempt to branch D&D into a mainstream acceptable form of recreation. It's STILL a geek game. It is only through mere luck (CCG via Pokemon and the mainstream growth of anime and fantasy genres in general) that D&D has been able to go along for the ride. That can only last for so long. While the female market is slowly increasing, you are right. There should be more done to get that demographic interested. One way would be to show that non-geeks play DnD. Too many high schoolers (and this is a great market for WotC to target) are all about popularity. DnD should be shown to be a popularity increaser, or at least neutral. The moment that DnD can lower your social standing is the moment that the female high school market in general will not touch it. True, but the market is only so big. Changing editions is not the answer for growing your market. And I'm telling you, with a line as BIG as 3.5 is, it's asking for trouble, unless WOTC plans on a marketing blitz designed to hit outside the gamer world. Imagine how confusing it would be NOW to be a new player if/when 4E pops up. 4e's entire presentation will have to be substantially different. I agree here too. 4e will have to be different enough to warrant switching editions while familiar enough to not drive off older gamers. It's a fine balancing act that all game companies have to deal with. I don't know how they've managed to pull it off yet, but they seem to do so. True. Maybe there is. My 3.0/3.5 rules knowledge is just a hair or two above amateur. But I think this trick of a system reboot is only going to work for so long. If/when 4E is presented, WOTC should make damn sure it's more easily revisable and expandable than what's there now. I don't think a 5.0 will be an option for them. This is true too. The systems that have too many editions drive away gamers. If the gamers feel like they will be getting a new edition rather than support for the current edition, they won't buy. You'll always have the diehards, but they cannot keep a company going forever. TSR found this out the hard way. Seriously, though... how many people IS that? Certainly not enough to count on to absorb your development and marketing costs. You mean to tell me there's THOUSANDS of non-3.X players out there, waiting or interested in a 4.0? The only reason I play 3.5 now at all is because my friends were already playing it when I moved back home. If I had my way, we'd probably have just continued using our 2E books, but they already had hundreds of dollars invested in 3.X, so that's what I deferred to. I STILL have only bought the base minimum books to play the game. I don't know how many, and I don't mean that they are necessarily waiting for 4e. I just mean that they are waiting for a system that they will be happy with that will have more support. Imagine what would happen if WotC put out a single supplemental book for 1st edition. There would be a ton of people wanting support for their favorite edition or setting. These people are there, I just don't know how many there are. Yeah, but therein lies the problem. Continually relying on the gamer base to feed itself could eventually backfire. They NEED to market to other demographics, especially with the erosion that MMORPGs are causing in the tabletop industry. I know many people that are getting bored with the MMORPGs. I doubt it's a significant amount of people. I do know that they are getting tired of exactly the same things over and over again. Grind for XP, team up with the same type of person 80% of the time, don't customize your character, no roleplaying all while paying $15 a month. I can buy a single book at $30-$45 and be good for years to come. They do need to look at other markets though. This was one of the problems that TSR created for itself. They focused on too many settings, hoping that the gamers would keep the company afloat. Gamers are already a niche group and making them more niche only exacerbates the problem. WotC does need to get into advertising more. IF, and it's a big if, IF WOTC did it right, potentially EVERY person out there with a WOW or Everquest account is a tabletop player. I don't know the current WOW subscription, but I'm willing to bet it's more than 6 mil at this point. And that doesn't even include Everquest. I'm pretty certain 6 mil is more than the current actively buying D&D player base. When I quit WoW there were 8 million players. Many of whom had never played DnD. The guild I was in had only 3 or 4 non-computer gamers. WotC could tap into this market so easily. There is already a WoW d20 RPG. All WotC would have to do is see about putting a set of quick play rules or a coupon for DnD inside the software boxes and the game cards. Yeah, but 1E and 2E were largely compatible. Especially the same for 3.0 and 3.5. I doubt 4E will have that compatibility. It's not an issue of if the system is good enough. It's an issue with how much of a value it actually is. There's a stoopid amount of 3.5E material out there, most of which my group owns in some way or form. These guys will be hard-pressed to switch, and I suspect that's true for a lot of people.... This is all sort of the logic behind my OP. I was trying to come up with a solution that could effectively appease everyone. I agree that there is a lot of material out there and many would be hard pressed to change. I don't think there is any reason for us to be worried about a new edition for some time. 3.5 seems to be doing fine for now. Personally, I would like to see more compendiums come out. I think an annual compendium showcasing the year's material would sell well. Especially if it focused on setting specific material and showed how to incorporate it into the core setting. Ugh..... 1:15. I still haven't done my writing work today. Curse you, Bob. But you did get some writing done ;) |
| Von_Harbringer07-15-07, 06:54 PM | I just want to address two things that recently came up in this topic 1) non-geeks, 2)women. In order to have non-geeks play DnD is to have a simple system that nearly any person can learn in one sitting. When I had to teach non-players how DnD works they were overwhelmed. The books intimidated them for starters. It looks like a textbook with very little pictures. Another is combat, its the most confusing part of the game even for me. Too many actions for one, during combat there is so much going on that I cannot keep track of everything. Also rules for "special" attacks such as attacks of opportunity, grapple, trip, overrun, etc. I liked how the character generation was simplified from 2nd to 3rd. Its less confusing to new players. As for women, I think Xena helped get more women into gaming than anything else. A local gamestore owner said once they want to tap into the female audience really bad. If anybody can figure out how they would be hired by WotC in a heartbeat. They do have women on staff there even then they still cannot tap into the audience. In a nutshell most gamer women are either geeks/nerds themselves or play because their b/f does. |
| Archtyrant Terevoth07-15-07, 06:59 PM | All I can say is... no. You want as few versions of the game as possible. People shouldn't have to learn 3-5 different rules variants and sets to play a game and that's precisely what happens when you've got a series of yearly updates. Some people will run 2005, others will run 2007 and others 2008. And that means you've got to know all that stuff. This isn't an online game you can just patch. Everytime you change the rules, everyone has to learn the rules changes. |
| shadzar07-15-07, 11:34 PM | I just want to address two things that recently came up in this topic 1) non-geeks, 2)women. In order to have non-geeks play DnD is to have a simple system that nearly any person can learn in one sitting. When I had to teach non-players how DnD works they were overwhelmed. The books intimidated them for starters. It looks like a textbook with very little pictures. Another is combat, its the most confusing part of the game even for me. Too many actions for one, during combat there is so much going on that I cannot keep track of everything. Also rules for "special" attacks such as attacks of opportunity, grapple, trip, overrun, etc. I liked how the character generation was simplified from 2nd to 3rd. Its less confusing to new players. As for women, I think Xena helped get more women into gaming than anything else. A local gamestore owner said once they want to tap into the female audience really bad. If anybody can figure out how they would be hired by WotC in a heartbeat. They do have women on staff there even then they still cannot tap into the audience. In a nutshell most gamer women are either geeks/nerds themselves or play because their b/f does. See John. See John is a fighter. See John the Fighter attack. Roll a d20 John roll a d20. Maybe WotC should let those Golden Books people write the game manuals. im sorry, but D&D is for smarter people. let dumb people go play hide and seek. if you cant grasp the simple parts of role-playing then you don't need to play. and you don't ned to know or understand all the "rules" to play and have fun. i am seriously thinking about running and old-school game locally to teach people how to play. no character sheets or anything for the players, other than dice, pencil and scratch paper. that way people can get that they main importance is making choices in the game, not how allt he complex and somewhat retarded "rules" say you can or can't do. D&D isn't a game that game have organized play due to the extent of the amount of rules. chess is simple to learn and play, its the little intricaies of winning that are hard to nail down. even Magic is easy to teach, again the little things that are involved in tournament style playing that make it harder. D&D should not try to have structured play, unless there are trained professionals hired to run the events. everybody plays differently so you can't have a finite system and expect everyone to play it. for new people maybe they should go back to the red books to play that was a very simple system. i dont understand how anyone that can live day to day cant understand how to play D&D since it involves the same type of actions, just in a different setting. mayeb that is what they could do for 4e. make sybdivions of the rules. or simplified version that cut out some of the tougher things to help starting players. or maybe jsut have a better DM guide that teaches people how to DM and relate to and with their player. |
| WhiteRaven81007-16-07, 01:26 AM | Senior members of the board are so flippin tired of 4e and 4e related threads its rather difficult to take any of them seriously, I'm sure. A majority of the junor member's are rather peeved ourselves. Yearly annuals are a joke. Contridictions within annuals and the orignal core will lead to confusion among player's as to what the damn rules actually are. We already have errata for the Core Three, with yearly annuals, we'd merely be recieving new errata each and every year, further leading to rule confusion. There's also something to be said for the fact that one annual and another couldn't be that much differnt as to be worth the cost updating my library every fifty-two weeks. |
| Elsenrail07-16-07, 07:18 AM | Guys... it's obvious the 4E won't hit the market until late 2009... or rather 2010* (10 years is a good lifecycle). There is simply too much 3.5 stuff. However, we can see a trend of releasing more adventures/standalone books, but not series anymore l(ike "Complete...", "Sanstorm" etc.) Perhaps a new Fiendish Codex... about yugoloths... or maybe celestial book. Yes, WotC revenues may be falling, but they are still strong - just look at the Amazon sales ranks. The books after 2-3 months are even still in 10000. That's extremely well performance for a RPG. Besides, novels are selling strong. * I don't know why, but the description of "The Crystal Mountain" (book III Empyrean Odyssey) seems to be about... changing the multiverse. http://www.o-love.net/realms/desc_ody.html#CrystalMountain It will be released in mid 2009... good time to change the multiverse and release a new edition... and it has to include some major changes of rules in order to draw players to it. 3.5 is a good product, so 4.0 has to be even better to sell. I think creating NPC on high levels in a shorter time is simply a must. |
| Dontgothere07-16-07, 07:49 AM | No, a gaming company is a "marketing force", as is every company. Their aim is to make money by supplying a game. D&D, under WoTC, has had one edition and one revision in 8 years. People make it seem like they make a new edition every weekend. Especially you. What is your beef already? Wrong. "Successful" companies are "marketing forces" not every company. The majority of gaming companies are in a slump. The only real success WotC had is with that moronic card game and even that is waning now. They don't know what they are doing when it comes to RPGs. New editions every three and a half years is the wrong model to be following; D&D is not a video game--nor a card game--yet they treat it like one. D&D, under WotC, has had TWO editions in what 7 years? One was disguised as a revision; they even had to redo the majority of the books since the changes were so drastic in certain parts of the game. Bottomline it was NOT a revision it was a new edition. I remember using my 2E books for years and when they came out with revisions you did not have to do half of the work that you did using them with your previous 2E material because it was actually a REVISION. WotC has video game console makers beat--with their new editions every 3.5 years or so model--who usually release new consoles every FOUR years. They keep treating D&D like a video game even though it is not one. I hope WotC falls through and then the game can go back into the hands of the fans who love it as opposed to all of these editions they keep dropping making things worse. :mad: |
| Bob Loblaw07-16-07, 09:22 AM | They don't know what they are doing when it comes to RPGs. New editions every three and a half years is the wrong model to be following; D&D is not a video game--nor a card game--yet they treat it like one. I can't seem to find any evidence that they have new editions every 3.5 years. I still can't find any 4th edition books. Until those books are in production, you can't justify this statement. D&D, under WotC, has had TWO editions in what 7 years? One was disguised as a revision; they even had to redo the majority of the books since the changes were so drastic in certain parts of the game. Bottomline it was NOT a revision it was a new edition. I remember using my 2E books for years and when they came out with revisions you did not have to do half of the work that you did using them with your previous 2E material because it was actually a REVISION. Again, WotC has put out one edition. Also, TSR was working on that one before the buyout. 3rd edition was TSR's baby. WotC came in later. It was published by WotC but it wasn't WotC's idea. They have not had to redo a majority of the books. There have been some revisions, yes. A majority, no. Most of the changes were actually small. While the changes affected many things, the change was easily implemented. For every big change you can find, I can find 10 more small ones that did not require a complete rewrite. I'm wondering if you've ever heard of errata (I mention this because you seem to ignore it whenever it's brought up). The revision was more like a huge set of errata that you had to pay for. You also never used a revised 2nd edition. It never existed. The Player's Options books were a set of optional rules, not a revision. When TSR put out the black cover rule books, the only thing that changed was the layout. There were no rules changes. Your memory is a little off. WotC has video game console makers beat--with their new editions every 3.5 years or so model--who usually release new consoles every FOUR years. They keep treating D&D like a video game even though it is not one. I am getting extremely tired of this 3.5 years BS you keep spouting. WotC has yet to put out 4th edition. Until that edition hits the market or an announcement is made, you cannot claim any business model based on timelines. Also, comparing video game consoles to non-video games is a very bad comparison. The reason there are new consoles is because technology has advanced. The companies make their money off of the games, not the consoles. The consoles are considered loss-leaders. I hope WotC falls through and then the game can go back into the hands of the fans who love it as opposed to all of these editions they keep dropping making things worse. :mad: No matter how much someone loves the game, if they can't understand how business works, they will cause the game to fail. The people involved must have a business mindset otherwise we will lose DnD no matter what. If you also think that they do not enjoy the game, you really have no idea what's going on. These people could make more money by going into writing for other (non-gaming) companies and probably make more. They stay because they love the game. At least that's what every single one of them has said in the past when asked. |
| shadzar07-16-07, 10:06 AM | I hope WotC falls through and then the game can go back into the hands of the fans who love it as opposed to all of these editions they keep dropping making things worse. :mad: Sadly Hasbro owns WotC and they give up nothing. they will throw the license into a vault and ignore it until the copyright runs out in 150+ years, or it goes bankrupt and must give up its licenses. Sadly Hasbro has too many avenues of income for them to go bankrupt, so D&D will never change hands again as even WotC will be completely absord by then one day. D&D died with TSR which died when Buck Rogers creators grand-daughter took over as CEO and purposefully tried to ruin the company cause she "didn't like those silly games". :( |
| MOTHdevil07-16-07, 10:19 AM | I just want to address two things that recently came up in this topic 1) non-geeks, 2)women. In order to have non-geeks play DnD is to have a simple system that nearly any person can learn in one sitting. When I had to teach non-players how DnD works they were overwhelmed. The books intimidated them for starters. It looks like a textbook with very little pictures. Another is combat, its the most confusing part of the game even for me. Too many actions for one, during combat there is so much going on that I cannot keep track of everything. Also rules for "special" attacks such as attacks of opportunity, grapple, trip, overrun, etc. I liked how the character generation was simplified from 2nd to 3rd. Its less confusing to new players. As for women, I think Xena helped get more women into gaming than anything else. A local gamestore owner said once they want to tap into the female audience really bad. If anybody can figure out how they would be hired by WotC in a heartbeat. They do have women on staff there even then they still cannot tap into the audience. In a nutshell most gamer women are either geeks/nerds themselves or play because their b/f does. Actually, this seems fairly easy to me. It's all in the presentation. WOTC needs to divorce presentation from rule sets, and simply find a way to educate their current users they're doing this. For example, there's "his" and "hers" versions of a LOT of things. Cell phones, deodorant, books, even certain video games have an obvious "girl" dynamic and structural appeal. Right now, the WOTC base dynamic is Single White American Men, ages roughly 14-18. Sure, there's many, many people outside that demographic, but that seems to be who WOTC is designing their products for, minus a few occasional one-offs like BoVD. So the solution here is simple, even if the implementation is not: Produce D&D rule books for specific demographics. Format, write, market, and structure them for these other LARGE groups. I've said it before: If WOTC could secure the rights to Harry Potter, or Narnia, or His Dark Materials, or Lemony Snicket, whatever - and then make an integrated lite rules set/campaign source book, not only could that sell like gangbusters, it would also help draw more people into the core D&D game. Mirrorstone, WOTC's children's publishing arm, has recently started to branch out into non-D&D based material. They should start trying to find a way to market some newer book series aged at their demographic, which the parent company could then tie in RPG materials suited for a younger set. The Dragonlance series, now has it's own age-appropriate books under this imprint. WOTC should snatch back the license from MWP and then make RPG books integrated with the world. These would be packaged RADICALLY different than classic RPG books, and be designed to sit on the shelf next to the "Dragonlance Adventures." You may not have noticed, but when the average girl thinks "fantasy," she doesn't think of hobbits and barbarians, she thinks of fairies, ghosts, or goblins. WOTC COULD be making an alternate D&D set that supports an integrated campaign world based around Fey. These books would not only help brig in the "girl quotient," but they would also be compatible with existing &D material... so they would effectively be serving as a much-needed fey supplement for the core game, while addressing the need to increase revenue by adding demographics. All these integrated lite rules/campaign books would serve to bring a HUGE new range of players, since the main stumbling block of D&D has always been a) The Geek Quotient (solved by a D&D re-brand on these products) and b) Not knowing what books to get or start with. |
| MOTHdevil07-16-07, 10:36 AM | I try to ignore the Star Trek movies starting with Generations. I have to say that I have not really liked any of them. First Contact was ok at best, and that was because I enjoyed the humor. Nemesis should never have been made. But this brings us way off topic. You are, of course, totally right... I just didn't want to stir up an off-topic potential hornet's nest. I wasn't trying to imply anything different. I was just trying to say that if they do work on a new edition, it would not be a step backwards. They would, hopefully, avoid things like weird formulas (THAC0, negative AC, arbitrary "balancing" experience point tables, etc.). Hopefully they would clean up some rules (Grappling comes immediately to mind). Absolutely. That would be my hope as well. Ideally, though, I'd still like to be able to use the books I already have. I agree completely. They should be doing what they can to have more product placement in movies, TV, and commercials. They should be putting ads in magazines other than gaming magazines, gamers already know about DnD. They should see about teaming up with Hasbro and talk about the Family Game Night including DnD. That's actually a great idea. There really should be some sort of focus on that, especially considering the amount of former players out there now with kids. There seems to be occasional fits and starts of doing this every so often (those boxed "starter sets"), but the end result is they usually end up in the FLGS, right next to all the other D&D stuff. I SHOULD be able to walk into Walmart and buy a D&D game I can teach my (hypothetical) kids. I know many people that are getting bored with the MMORPGs. I doubt it's a significant amount of people. I do know that they are getting tired of exactly the same things over and over again. Grind for XP, team up with the same type of person 80% of the time, don't customize your character, no roleplaying all while paying $15 a month. I can buy a single book at $30-$45 and be good for years to come. I've NEVER seen the appeal of these games, other than it basically combines a chat room with Golden Axe. But yeah, if you can pay $15 a month for WOW, you have expendable income for D&D books. When I quit WoW there were 8 million players. Many of whom had never played DnD. The guild I was in had only 3 or 4 non-computer gamers. WotC could tap into this market so easily. There is already a WoW d20 RPG. All WotC would have to do is see about putting a set of quick play rules or a coupon for DnD inside the software boxes and the game cards. That's also a great idea... I wonder if there's some sort of block preventing that. Is the WOW RPG produce by WOTC, or is it OGL? I agree that there is a lot of material out there and many would be hard pressed to change. I don't think there is any reason for us to be worried about a new edition for some time. 3.5 seems to be doing fine for now. Personally, I would like to see more compendiums come out. I think an annual compendium showcasing the year's material would sell well. Especially if it focused on setting specific material and showed how to incorporate it into the core setting. You mean an annual? :D But you did get some writing done ;) If WOTC wants to pay me for posting, I'll be more than happy to hang on this board all day. |
| Bob Loblaw07-16-07, 10:41 AM | That's also a great idea... I wonder if there's some sort of block preventing that. Is the WOW RPG produce by WOTC, or is it OGL? I believe it has the d20 logo. But I don't see any reason why WotC and Blizzard couldn't team up for some shared revenue. You mean an annual? :D Not quite in the same context you described, but yes. I used to really enjoy the Dragon Annuals back in the day. |
| Steely_Dan07-16-07, 10:41 AM | when Buck Rogers creators grand-daughter took over as CEO and purposefully tried to ruin the company cause she "didn't like those silly games". Aren't we not supposed to discuss/mention She who shall not be Named? |
| Steely_Dan07-16-07, 10:43 AM | I believe it has the d20 logo. But I don't see any reason why WotC and Blizzard couldn't team up for some shared revenue. Exactly, it also has the WotC approved label, just like the Dragon Compendium Vol. I. |
| Ikyotojin07-16-07, 10:49 AM | I kinda like the way we do it. We took the core books from 3 and read a lot of errata and fixed what we thought was wrong and then said "ok, let's play". Been playing D&D since it first started back in the 70's and learned an important lesson - it's more about having internal consistency in the house rules and letting people know what they are before they play. |
| Anaxander07-16-07, 11:44 AM | Instead of annual updates... let's start with free, on-line, annual errata? |
| Sarella Starshine07-16-07, 11:58 AM | stuf.... *raise eyebrow* A seperate D&D game for 'girls'? Dear god, the sheer horror of this idea astounds me. It won't be worth it. Girls (and by coralation women, ladies, etc.) are as diverse as boys are. The reason that 'girl' deoderants work is that *gasp* women have different chemistry than men (DUH) and therefore, a deoderant that is manufactured to combat a man's chemistry may not work (or not work as well) on a female. I have never seen a 'girl' cell phone (unless you mean the ones that are colored 'girl' colors like pink or red instead of 'boy' colors like blue or black). Everything else was just plain insulting. I know that if there was a 'girl' version of D&D that as a girl, I would feel that being a 'girl' precludes me from acctually playing the 'regular' (or 'boy') version of D&D (even if that is not really the case). I am a girl. But, I should not have to feel that my gender makes me 'special' (I am special, but not because I am a girl :P), and that I have/deserve 'special' treatment because of it. It would be like walking into an action flick (which I like) and being told because I am a 'girl' I have to watch the 'chick flick' because the action film was designed for 'men/boys' and that as a 'girl' I would not find it appealing, and after watching the 'chick flick' I could have watched the action film after all, but the 'chick flick' was designed to get me introduced into the concept of films in general. :rolleyes: If WotC really wanted to get the 'girl' market, they can advertise D&D as being 'cool' in 'girl' magazines. That being said, I can understand the idea behind a 'rules lite' version for school children to get them into the spirit of how D&D works, but you would need to be able to get them to want the more 'rule heavy' version after a while, otherwise, they will not want to 'move up' so to speak and thier parents would want full support of the 'rules lite' version as well. |
| SokenzanMarauder07-16-07, 12:02 PM | !!!Awesomesauce!!! I must preface this with the fact that I'm not a female. However, after reading this, I both agree with you entirely (on all relavent points) and I feel that I must worship you (sorry Cryosilver, this takes precedence for a bit). :bow: -Gene |
| MOTHdevil07-16-07, 01:01 PM | *raise eyebrow* A seperate D&D game for 'girls'? Dear god, the sheer horror of this idea astounds me. It won't be worth it. Girls (and by coralation women, ladies, etc.) are as diverse as boys are. The reason that 'girl' deoderants work is that *gasp* women have different chemistry than men (DUH) and therefore, a deoderant that is manufactured to combat a man's chemistry may not work (or not work as well) on a female. I have never seen a 'girl' cell phone (unless you mean the ones that are colored 'girl' colors like pink or red instead of 'boy' colors like blue or black). Everything else was just plain insulting. I know that if there was a 'girl' version of D&D that as a girl, I would feel that being a 'girl' precludes me from acctually playing the 'regular' (or 'boy') version of D&D (even if that is not really the case). I am a girl. But, I should not have to feel that my gender makes me 'special' (I am special, but not because I am a girl :P), and that I have/deserve 'special' treatment because of it. It would be like walking into an action flick (which I like) and being told because I am a 'girl' I have to watch the 'chick flick' because the action film was designed for 'men/boys' and that as a 'girl' I would not find it appealing, and after watching the 'chick flick' I could have watched the action film after all, but the 'chick flick' was designed to get me introduced into the concept of films in general. :rolleyes: If WotC really wanted to get the 'girl' market, they can advertise D&D as being 'cool' in 'girl' magazines. That being said, I can understand the idea behind a 'rules lite' version for school children to get them into the spirit of how D&D works, but you would need to be able to get them to want the more 'rule heavy' version after a while, otherwise, they will not want to 'move up' so to speak and thier parents would want full support of the 'rules lite' version as well. (Fully anticipating an army of guys rushing in to side with the isolated woman's opinion) You do know deodorant started out as one "flavor" right? It only diversified into "his and hers" products when hygiene companies saw the financial advantage in splitting it up... Ditto all those flowery cell phone cases, pink Gameboys, and and hosts of other products. We're a consumer culture. Companies try to appeal to as many consumers as possible. That's just how it is, it's not a comment on your chromosomal makeup. I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm just pointing out facts. I'm fully aware there's ladies out there that are not only receptive to "real" fantasy and sci-fi, but also ravenous about it. They rock. That doesn't change the fact that the majority of game players are male. It's obvious... Go into your locale FLGS - How many other women do you see in there proportionately to men? The wife of one of the players in my group (herself a player) went to pick up a mini by herself the other day... And came back astounded she wasn't mobbed by "friendly" geeks trying to help her select one. She was astounded because that wasn't her normal experience. If women represented such a large group of the gamer demographic, I wouldn't even be mentioning this right now. I'm happy to know you play, and frankly I'm thrilled whenever I see ANYONE expressing an interest in the genre and all it's related subcultures, but the fact is the genre is still mostly appealing to the male demographic. I'm not an "average" guy - like many guys on here. Personally, I find televised sports and the personality cult surrounding athletes a disturbing commentary on our society. I don't drink, beer or otherwise. I don't get my rocks off fixing stuff or checking out the latest Will Ferrel movie. That's me. By the same token, I find some things traditionally attributed to women fun: I like to cook. I find interior decorating a creative challenge. I look forward to Ugly Betty on Thursdays. My girlfriend finds my lack of interest in "manly" things frustrating, but that's the way I tick. My point is I'm atypical, and so are you. That's not a bad thing, just an obvious one. WOTC and companies in general can't grow by continuing to appeal to "atypical" groups, which is why I suggested what I did. At no point did I pull the "girls are dumb" card. I merely cited a fantasy genre that is more appealing to the majority of women than Tolkien or Sword and Sorcery fantasy. If WOTC was smart, they'd be capitalizing on that. And frankly, if they WERE to release a Fey oriented d20 game with useful D&D material, I'd be all over that. Advertising D&D in "17" or "Teen Beat" isn't going to do jack, no matter how you spin the marketing. As it's been frequently pointed out, D&D has a (male) geek stigma associated with it. You need to first have a product that will appeal to the group before they'll swallow the advertising. Look at video games - a few years ago, that was mostly male as well, now it's nearly a 50/50 split. The reason for this is that the companies producing the product evaluated their marketplace and realized there's a whole mess of women out there that aren't interested in Doom - They didn't play games at all, because the uneducated message there was "all video games are like Doom." Then, games like The Sims starting coming out. Dogs. Games that involved more social interaction than shooting stuff. Now the market is complete changed, and women are much more receptive as a consumerbase to video games in general - including games like Doom! You need to cater to a group before you can blur the lines between them. |
| On_the_wings_of_TPK07-16-07, 01:55 PM | You forgot the third reason why 4th ed will come out. It is part of a master plot for Wizo_Cat to take over the world, and rule us all. |
| MOTHdevil07-16-07, 02:10 PM | You forgot the third reason why 4th ed will come out. It is part of a master plot for Wizo_Cat to take over the world, and rule us all. Please cite source. |
| On_the_wings_of_TPK07-16-07, 02:23 PM | Stuff on catoring to boarder markets. Regards to Starshine being an atypical female. And thus her point is in error. Actually you both have a point. Women generally do have different tastes then men. hence why the term "chick flick" exists. Now a theater isn't going to deny a girl from watching a a movie made for guys anymore more then they are going to stop a guy from watching a chick flick. Similarly if I really wanted to own a pink razrr, then my local provider would happily sell me one, no questions asked. However that doesn't change the fact that movie like Devil wears Parada, and the pink razr are marketed towards women. But what does that have to do with the way in which D&D is marketed? Well not much actually, because the game is already board enough to cover a wide range of tastes. And further it already plays to what psychologists say, and there research show, as the number one appeal for women. Thats the social aspect. Men tend to prefer more competitive atmospheres, were women tend perfer more social gathering like activities. Part of that is hormonal (testosterone vrs estragene.) Another part of that is is the current social paradigm. For a large part of society girls are still expected, and do, to fit into the hole girlly girl steryo type. At least to some degree. The converse is true for men. MOTHdevil spelled that out perfect when he said he is an atypical male by not liking to fix things, or play football etc. However D&D, and role playing games don't fit into the stereotypically model of a mens game either. Firstly it is non-competitive, and secondly it is non-physical. Although granted you get to kill to things. Thus the biggest stumbling blocks for D&D attracting a larger obedience as nothing to do with the rules at all. But the social stigma attached to it. That is that is still considered a geek thing. And the best way to confront, or change that would be to normalize it. Which means that star is right when she says that the best way to attract women to it would to advertise it in a womens magazine. The same holds to true for main stream men. If wotc were to target advertise in cosm, and maxine I'm sure we see a lot more nongamers begin to think about the hobby seriousely. Now the traditional adds you see in mags like dungeon, or the duelist won't do, of course. For cosmo they adds would have to feature a bunch of the "cool-girls" playing the game and having a fun time witht he boyfriends. Maybe an artical about how D&D will bring you and your mate closer together, or how role-playing is sexy....For maxim the adds should feature aa bunch guys drinking, and having a really good time playing D&D. Focus on the macho barbarians killing the orcs, and have some scantily glad hot gamer chicks in there somewhere. Other then the only other thing that Wotc can do to come make chick d&d would be to come out with a pink PHB, and fuzzy d20s. |
| MOTHdevil07-16-07, 03:03 PM | Etc. Etc. But what does that have to do with the way in which D&D is marketed? Etc. Etc. Good mediation... It's very hard to post stuff over a paragraph on a board like this and not feel like you're putting your foot in your mouth. ...But I still contend marketing here is key to expanded demographic appeal... Your ideas and focus for the Cosmo/Maxim ads are interesting, but IMO it still all boils down to the D&D books looking like they're catering to 14 y/o boys... Witness the "cool" factor of huge armor/swords, flashy spells, emphasis on "superpowers", and the obvious borrowing that's coming from similar demographical markets like video games, CCGs, and manga. These paradigms permeate the game from the formating right down through the artwork - It's just not an "accessible" format to non-gamer types! I still contend changing that up, not unlike skins on cellphone, would greatly diversify the market. And let's face it: The sheer bulk of text and mathematics can be a BIG turn off to people otherwise predisposed to like the game. Rather than having WOTC focus on monthly 3.5 supplements (or eventual 4E) of varying quality, they could instead be spending their same resources by doing targeted rotation at each of these demographics: Complete Companion (core players) for 3.5 in October Hogwarts Advanced Beastiary (ages 9-12) in November Court of the Fairies (Labyrinth meets D&D meets fairy tales) in December Tome of Thievery (core players) for 3.5 in January Etc. Etc. The advantage of this marketing/writing/release system is obvious: 1) Better quality product for all lines across the board (i.e. less "Affiliations" and reprints) 2) Diversifying the product lines to appeal to more people, growing WOTC on a whole without the NEED to release stuff like a 4E, unless it's actually useful. 3) A common system across the board, allowing players to mix, match, switch, and add to their system of choice. |
| shadzar07-16-07, 03:22 PM | Aren't we not supposed to discuss/mention She who shall not be Named? i didn't say her name because i don't know it.. :P but my point is true. as much as i despise WotC D&D editions at least they are trying a bit to promote what they consider to be D&D when SHE tried to destroy it. |
| Rustmonster07-16-07, 08:09 PM | ...But I still contend marketing here is key to expanded demographic appeal... Your ideas and focus for the Cosmo/Maxim ads are interesting, but IMO it still all boils down to the D&D books looking like they're catering to 14 y/o boys... Witness the "cool" factor of huge armor/swords, flashy spells, emphasis on "superpowers", and the obvious borrowing that's coming from similar demographical markets like video games, CCGs, and manga. I don't understand why you'd think this. More people than 14 year old boys like magic, weapons and "super powers". And no, these elements are not borrowed from video games, TCG, or manga. Yes, video games have weapons and armour, yes, TCGs have magic, yes, manga has super powers. But so do comic books, ancient texts, the bible, TV, movies, board games, books, war, etc etc etc. The thing is, D&D magic is NOT Harry Potter magic, D&D weapons are NOT videogame weapons, D&D super powers are NOT manga super powers. There is a distinct difference. Anytime something has magic in it, do you say "well, gee. That was borrowing from video games/manga/TCG"? These paradigms permeate the game from the formating right down through the artwork - It's just not an "accessible" format to non-gamer types! I still contend changing that up, not unlike skins on cellphone, would greatly diversify the market. And let's face it: The sheer bulk of text and mathematics can be a BIG turn off to people otherwise predisposed to like the game. Are you suggesting they remove the math from these editions not "targeted at 14 year old boys"? So, for the woman's D&D "skin" of the PHB, they remove all that silly math because it might turn cheerleaders off of playing D&D? Face it, people who would snub a game because it has math and text wouldn't play D&D no matter what is on the cover. Rather than having WOTC focus on monthly 3.5 supplements (or eventual 4E) of varying quality, they could instead be spending their same resources by doing targeted rotation at each of these demographics: Complete Companion (core players) for 3.5 in October Hogwarts Advanced Beastiary (ages 9-12) in November Court of the Fairies (Labyrinth meets D&D meets fairy tales) in December Tome of Thievery (core players) for 3.5 in January Etc. Etc. I'm GLAD WoTC isn't this much of a blantant licensing... They have one demographic, and that is "people who play D&D". I don't want my D&D to become just some vessel to play Harry Potter or whatever other licensed shill is popular this week. D&D is a completly seperate entity from other things. A d20 Harry Potter supliment? That would be fine. Making the lil' product monger core D&D? Not in hell. Harry Potter is set in a completly different setting than D&D. They arn't compatable. D&D isn't just a way to play other settings, it is a setting. I hope you understand that I'm only using Potter as an example. It's the same as if they made a "That's SO Raven!" D&D splatbook. Ya, it's popular with young girls, a largly untaped demographic, but is it D&D? No, because they are not even remotly the same thing. I like D&D as D&D, not "generic system to live out demographic steriotype fantasies". That's what d20 system (and probably a couple other systems like GURPS) is. And yet again, anyone not wanting to play D&D for D&D wasn't going to play the game anyway, so putting it in the skin of Harry Potter won't help. |
| MOTHdevil07-16-07, 08:57 PM | I don't understand why you'd think this. More people than 14 year old boys like magic, weapons and "super powers". And no, these elements are not borrowed from video games, TCG, or manga. Yes, video games have weapons and armour, yes, TCGs have magic, yes, manga has super powers. But so do comic books, ancient texts, the bible, TV, movies, board games, books, war, etc etc etc. The thing is, D&D magic is NOT Harry Potter magic, D&D weapons are NOT videogame weapons, D&D super powers are NOT manga super powers. There is a distinct difference. Anytime something has magic in it, do you say "well, gee. That was borrowing from video games/manga/TCG"? There is a distinct, palpable, difference between the fantasy featured in 3.5 D&D and the fantasy featured in Tolkien, for example. In fact, I'm having difficulty recalling any of the fireballs, teleports, or psionic feats Gandalf managed to squeeze out during the course of the trilogy. Ditto for the foes of Conan the Barbarian, and though it's been a LONG time, I don't recall X-men style feats and spells in the context of Elric or the Grey Mouser's worlds, either. And add Narnia to that list. There is a conscious decision on the part of the game designers to amp up the power quotient in each subsequent edition of the D&D game. I understand that "superpowers" have been in place since well before biblical texts, but you CAN'T convince me the current structure of the game attempts to ground itself in any sort of thematic logic. It's kitchen-sink, all the way. My DM and I repeatedly slap our foreheads with a lot of this stuff, especially since it's REALLY hard to convince the rest of our group some of this is laughably comic-book and borderline campy for people under the age of thirty. How many stone walls have been chopped down with adamantine swords in YOUR campaign? ;) Are you suggesting they remove the math from these editions not "targeted at 14 year old boys"? So, for the woman's D&D "skin" of the PHB, they remove all that silly math because it might turn cheerleaders off of playing D&D? Face it, people who would snub a game because it has math and text wouldn't play D&D no matter what is on the cover. Again, people get their panties in a bunch because I suggested WOTC could substantially increase their profit margin by (correctly) parallel marketing a stripped down version of their game. I don't get this. In fact, if the rest of my group wasn't there to show me and two other players (coincidently female, by the way) how a lot of this statistical crap works in 3.X, I wouldn't even bother playing the current edition myself - So such stripped down "kiddie version" would appeal to me. And I don't think I'm alone. How many players out there over 30 remember the red box set? I play to create a story, not crunch numbers. I'm not implying D&D core should be dumbed down in any way, just that new alternatives/gateways be provided. I'm GLAD WoTC isn't this much of a blantant licensing... I applaud your fervor for defending the game as you know it, but you're speaking from a consumer POV, there. They have one demographic, and that is "people who play D&D". See? I don't want my D&D to become just some vessel to play Harry Potter or whatever other licensed shill is popular this week. D&D is a completly seperate entity from other things. A d20 Harry Potter supliment? That would be fine. Making the lil' product monger core D&D? Not in hell. Harry Potter is set in a completly different setting than D&D. They arn't compatable. D&D isn't just a way to play other settings, it is a setting. 'Cause Eberron is really D&D-like? How in the name of Hades is a bunch of magic locomotives and a thinly-disguised WW2 parable D&D?! It is because it was marketed that way. The same can be done with anything else. Perhaps you're familiar with D20 Modern? Or the HUNDREDS of non-D&D world OGL products? I hope you understand that I'm only using Potter as an example. It's the same as if they made a "That's SO Raven!" D&D splatbook. Ya, it's popular with young girls, a largly untaped demographic, but is it D&D? No, because they are not even remotly the same thing. I like D&D as D&D, not "generic system to live out demographic steriotype fantasies". That's what d20 system (and probably a couple other systems like GURPS) is. And yet again, anyone not wanting to play D&D for D&D wasn't going to play the game anyway, so putting it in the skin of Harry Potter won't help. I can't help but think of George Carlin's "not in my back yard" rants when I read this. What's so wrong with expanding the brand and ideas? Is this such a xenophobic community that we don't want other people to share and maybe even understand why we play this game?! It's like "D&D" is some sort of mystic secret that everyone's afraid of sharing. Look, I never said "WOTC must change the D&D brand." I simply said "add to WOTC's product line by using D&D as an example." If this increased the revenue of WOTC and also brought more people into the main D&D brand, what the hell is wrong with that? What's wrong with offering other flavors of ice cream, as long as you continue to produce chocolate and vanilla ? |
| Bob Loblaw07-16-07, 10:04 PM | What's so wrong with expanding the brand and ideas? Is this such a xenophobic community that we don't want other people to share and maybe even understand why we play this game?! It's like "D&D" is some sort of mystic secret that everyone's afraid of sharing. Look, I never said "WOTC must change the D&D brand." I simply said "add to WOTC's product line by using D&D as an example." If this increased the revenue of WOTC and also brought more people into the main D&D brand, what the hell is wrong with that? What's wrong with offering other flavors of ice cream, as long as you continue to produce chocolate and vanilla ? TSR tried to have lots of different settings, all using the same DnD engine. It nearly destroyed the company. With such a niche market, making things more niche doesn't help the situation. This is the primary reason I can see that the d20 license is such a great idea. It allows the d20 engine to be used by other companies while WotC makes a little off of the free advertising and (I assume) the actual license. I think WotC would be better off working on removing the geek stigma that DnD holds. Magic the Gathering has tournaments on ESPN. There is no reason why DnD can't have the same thing in other ways. WotC could fight for product placement in movies and TV. Imagine if you were watching Die Hard 7 and you noticed John McClain had a DnD book on his shelf in the background. If John McClain can play DnD and still be cool, then it can't be all that bad. |
| Rustmonster07-16-07, 10:59 PM | There is a distinct, palpable, difference between the fantasy featured in 3.5 D&D and the fantasy featured in Tolkien, for example. In fact, I'm having difficulty recalling any of the fireballs, teleports, or psionic feats Gandalf managed to squeeze out during the course of the trilogy. Ditto for the foes of Conan the Barbarian, and though it's been a LONG time, I don't recall X-men style feats and spells in the context of Elric or the Grey Mouser's worlds, either. And add Narnia to that list. Umm, this is exactly what I said. Thank you for proving my point. I applaud your fervor for defending the game as you know it, but you're speaking from a consumer POV, there. And I beleive you too are a customer, knowing nothing of how WoTC is run. Do you have any business training? Even if you do, you don't know WoTC's objectives, veiws, etc, so you can't speak from their point of veiw. All you have is your idea of their point of veiw, which is, I'm sorry to say it, likely wrong. 'Cause Eberron is really D&D-like? How in the name of Hades is a bunch of magic locomotives and a thinly-disguised WW2 parable D&D?! It is because it was marketed that way. The same can be done with anything else. Perhaps you're familiar with D20 Modern? Or the HUNDREDS of non-D&D world OGL products? Eberron is a different setting from "vanilla" D&D. They are a different game under the same system. What YOU have suggested, however, was putting an element from an entirely diffrent setting into a current setting. Eberron works with Eberron. Greyhawk works with Greyhwak. Greyhawk/Eberron with Harry Potter? Doesn't work. I can't help but think of George Carlin's "not in my back yard" rants when I read this. What's so wrong with expanding the brand and ideas? Is this such a xenophobic community that we don't want other people to share and maybe even understand why we play this game?! It's like "D&D" is some sort of mystic secret that everyone's afraid of sharing. I don't understand you. I am glad to share the game with others. What I don't want is WoTC to add things that don't belong in the game in a sad atempt to "grow the userbase". D&D isn't Harry Potter/Narnia/Naruto/Inuyasha/Disney/Mortal Kombat/Soul Caliber/Castlevania/Pirates of the Carribean/Etc. These things do not belong in "vanilla" D&D (although Belmont may work in Ravenloft). In generic d20, these things are fine. Not in D&D. Look, I never said "WOTC must change the D&D brand." I simply said "add to WOTC's product line by using D&D as an example." If this increased the revenue of WOTC and also brought more people into the main D&D brand, what the hell is wrong with that? What's wrong with offering other flavors of ice cream, as long as you continue to produce chocolate and vanilla ? The thing is, using an icecream analogy, let's say D&D (Greyhawk) is vanilla. Then, Eberron might be choclate. D20 Modern might be spumony. Star Wars d20 might be orange. D20: Narnia might be cookie dough flavoured. The thing is, you want to mish-mash flavours together. This will not make them taste very good, or at least causes them to spill onto your pants. WoTC can increase revenue by making games based around Harry Potter/Narnia/Naruto/Inuyasha/Disney/Mortal Kombat/Soul Caliber/Castlevania/Pirates of the Carribean/Etc, but they wouldn't put them in D&D. |
| UltimateReality07-16-07, 11:16 PM | WOTC could substantially increase their profit margin by (correctly) parallel marketing a stripped down version of their game.I thought they did. I thought it was called the Basic Game? (Or set, or whatever...I started right in on the books, but I know there's a stripped down version out there with pre-gen characters.) I too am all for marketing in more mainstream publications. I know they figure the gamer-mag targetted ads get more return on investments, and seeing as I haven't seen the figures, who knows, maybe they do. But I know I would personally get a big kick out of seeing a D&D ad in Maxim or Cosmo...and it would probably help me get less weird looks when I mention it to other chicks. |
| Sarella Starshine07-16-07, 11:44 PM | You are not understanding our viewpoint. WotC, if it wants to attract Suzie Cheerleader, needs to avertise in the media that Suzie Cheerleader exposes herself to. It needs to show that D&D is a game that her, her girlfriends on the cheerleader squad and her boyfriend, Billy Quarterback and his football buddies, can play, and that it is 'cool' to be caught doing so. We need to divorce the game from the idea that it's a 'nerd only' game. Releasing a 'rules lite' game won't do that. I personally feel that if a 'rules lite' version was relased that was aimed at the non-gaming population, that we, as gamers, are being elitists and that we feel that the non-gaming population 'can't handle' the 'normal' version which would cause it to flop. |
| shadzar07-17-07, 12:17 AM | but you don't want suzie cheerleader (ditzy airhead) and billy quaterback (dumb jock) playing D&D. D&D requires intelligence. some people will want to be seem playing it and others wont. what would need to be done is know if this cheerleader is a game or not. you can't make games for non-gamers. |
| Von_Harbringer07-17-07, 12:32 AM | You are not understanding our viewpoint. WotC, if it wants to attract Suzie Cheerleader, needs to advertise in the media that Suzie Cheerleader exposes herself to. It needs to show that D&D is a game that her, her girlfriends on the cheerleader squad and her boyfriend, Billy Quarterback and his football buddies, can play, and that it is 'cool' to be caught doing so. We need to divorce the game from the idea that it's a 'nerd only' game. Releasing a 'rules lite' game won't do that. I personally feel that if a 'rules lite' version was released that was aimed at the non-gaming population, that we, as gamers, are being elitists and that we feel that the non-gaming population 'can't handle' the 'normal' version which would cause it to flop. When I said DnD needs to able to be understood in one sitting, what I meant was that you don't have to keep rereading it and debating with your fellow players to what it means (better errata). Also I am sure I am not the only one here who couldn't keep track of all the spells, effects and actions in a major combat. We've all at one time or another been skipped over initiative confusion. What annoys me is the theme I get off a few people, on this thread, is that its "our" game. I'm sorry are we going to be as clique as the jocks and cheerleaders. Rules Lite = Munchkin (http://www.sjgames.com/munchkin/rpg/) |
| shadzar07-17-07, 06:19 AM | you can't structurally organize D&D in any manner that will mean everyone always plays the same game. since the game is based on peoples imaginations then rules will always vary and drift from one way or the other. there will never be a centralized ruleset that everyone agrees with. |
| Steely_Dan07-17-07, 07:37 AM | what would need to be done is know if this cheerleader is a game or not. Cheerleader the RPG? Is it based off of that movie? |
| Anaxander07-17-07, 07:58 AM | People (boys and girls, males and females, academics and cheerleaders) aren't born as gamers, they become gamers. When do you become a gamer? When you're attracted to the game and learn to play it. You don't become a gamer when: 1) you are repelled by the popular image of D&D as 'only for geeks' and never learn to play it 2) you try it out, but it just isn't your cup of tea WotC can do something about the first issue by promoting D&D as a social and creative game, which it actually is/should be. The second problem can be overcome by changes in the game system and presentation, but, like any other game, it will never satisfy everyone. The system assumes some basic intelligence, but the main prerequisite is not a thoroughly knowledge of mathematics, but imagination. I know a lot of 'intelligent' people who think LOTR and fantasy in general is stupid, because there are elves and dwarves and, gasp, magic in it. Then I know some people who don't have university or college degrees which enjoy playing D&D, because really, how hard is it to roll a d20 and have some fun? Most of the players in my group (men and women alike) would never have roleplayed if I had not introduced them to the game. The problem is not the game itself, it is the way roleplaying is stereotyped in the mass media (the latest Shrek movie eg). Most people don't know D&D or other roleplaying games and if they know it, they have some serious prejudices against it. |
| Sarella Starshine07-17-07, 08:08 AM | When I said DnD needs to able to be understood in one sitting, what I meant was that you don't have to keep rereading it and debating with your fellow players to what it means (better errata). Also I am sure I am not the only one here who couldn't keep track of all the spells, effects and actions in a major combat. We've all at one time or another been skipped over initiative confusion. What annoys me is the theme I get off a few people, on this thread, is that its "our" game. I'm sorry are we going to be as clique as the jocks and cheerleaders. Rules Lite = Munchkin (http://www.sjgames.com/munchkin/rpg/) I am not advocating any sort of "our" game mentality, I am advocating mainstream media advertising to actually *gasp* get RID of that. How can we be holding an "our" game mentality when we are advocating for the stigma of geek/nerddom be removed and have D&D and RPGs in general be an acceptable mainstream persuit? All most of us are saying is that it should not take a seperate yet equal ruleset. Especially if that seperate yet equal ruleset is a 'rules lite' version. |
| Steely_Dan07-17-07, 08:16 AM | It's interesting, over here in Europe, these stigmas/lame stereotypes of gamers/RPG's etc, just don't exist- it's just another one of many eccentric hobbies. |
| Leo07-17-07, 08:40 AM | It's interesting, over here in Europe, these stigmas/lame stereotypes of gamers/RPG's etc, just doesn't exist- it's just another one of many eccentric hobbies. Indeed, at least in my European country, we make fun of the stereotypes the americans seem to have against gamers. But D&D propaganda is awfully low. Most people around here only know there is a game called D&D, and thats' it. |
| Anaxander07-17-07, 08:52 AM | It's interesting, over here in Europe, these stigmas/lame stereotypes of gamers/RPG's etc, just doesn't exist- it's just another one of many eccentric hobbies. Where I live, people in general don't know D&D, but if they know it (and they aren't players), they still associate it with the stereotypical images from American movies/soaps/etc. This is weird because most people involved in roleplaying I know aren't the typical 'geeky' gamers, even the shopkeepers... Then again, in an ordinary game or toy shop, you can't find even the core D&D books. How hard is it for the large game shops to put the 3 core books on the shelf, next to monopoly? |
| Steely_Dan07-17-07, 09:25 AM | Most people around here only know there is a game called D&D, and thats' it. Same here (London UK). |
| MOTHdevil07-17-07, 10:12 AM | Aaargh. Let me preface this by saying I DO have business knowledge. Not about RPGs specifically, but I DO have a degree and work experience in this, so when I'm speaking here, it's not entirely from a geek POV. I don't make a habit running my mouth off on things I'm unqualified to speak about. I'd like to think I have a little more expertise in this stuff than some of you, otherwise the last decade of my life experience and education were pointless. I hear they give degrees out in cereal boxes now. You guys are not understanding my point. You're fixating on components of my posts and then blowing them up into unreasonable chimeras of what they intended to be. Some of you the "girl vs. boy stuff," some of you the "D&D is for da smarty pants people stuff," and others "D&D is D&D and you can't change that stuff." None of my posts, if you read them carefully, were meant to address these ideas specifically. They are all part of one whole cloth that is "what can WOTC do to appeal RPGs in general to a large amount of people, thus increasing their revenue?" 1) D&D is D&D. It is a BRAND. Producing additional games with a compatible rules-set will not dilute the existing quality of the brand. It will not replace the brand. The brand you know and love continues to exist. Conceptually, it would actually INCREASE the overall quality of the core brand, since with additional revenue streams, WOTC will not be forced to milk their core group with unneeded books - only books that have merit would need be published. 2) You can market something to "cheerleaders" and "jocks" all you want, but the fact is D&D (the BRAND) is still considered a pastime ridden with geek-stank. True, long-term creative marketing MIGHT be able to help overcome this stigma partially, but the fact is that D&D (the BRAND) is associated with geeks, statistics, a lot of reading - And guys with big swords that fling allies and blast eldritch powers from their fingertips... In order to appeal to a larger (or different) group of people, an effort must be made to recognize these facts. There's absolutely no reason that every kid (and adult) that's read all seven Harry Potter books shouldn't be a RPG enthusiast of some degree. Ditto for WOW players. What's holding them back is the trappings of the D&D BRAND, and exposure to the concepts of RPGs in general. 3) The obvious answer and workaround to point 2 is to create NEW brands. These new brands use the same basic concepts as D&D, but are instead configured to be less rules-heavy and integrate characters and or settings that appeal to these other demographics. I'm not talking about merely a "basic set" D&D here. I'm talking about different, lite but COMPATIBLE games that not only bring in new players because of the different appeal, but also might funnel those players into D&D (the BRAND) if RPGs turn out to be something they like. The reason those "basic D&D" sets failed in the past was because they're still "D&D," and they're put on the shelf right next to the other D&D products! Confusion, poor marketing, and branding is why they didn't sell. Create new games using the D&D mechanics. Use ideas and concepts that appeal to people outside of the pulp fantasy D&D mostly represents. Format these games differently. Distribute them differently. Advertise them differently. By addressing these other markets and slowly tying them into the D&D brand, WOTC would not only grow their revenue substantially, but also lock in new generations and demographics of players... All the while slowly erasing the geek-stigma of the core brand. |
| Bob Loblaw07-17-07, 10:34 AM | None of my posts, if you read them carefully, were meant to address these ideas specifically. They are all part of one whole cloth that is "what can WOTC do to appeal RPGs in general to a large amount of people, thus increasing their revenue?" I think we can all see this. I think that each idea should be looked at and its merits considered. This is how the big business decisions work. 1) D&D is D&D. It is a BRAND. Producing additional games with a compatible rules-set will not dilute the existing quality of the brand. It will not replace the brand. The brand you know and love continues to exist. Conceptually, it would actually INCREASE the overall quality of the core brand, since with additional revenue streams, WOTC will not be forced to milk their core group with unneeded books - only books that have merit would need be published. In theory this should work. In practice it destroyed TSR. This is where WotC should be seeking out 3rd parties to produce these products with the idea that WotC gets some of the profits. When I say seeking, I mean actually going to the other companies not waiting for them to go to WotC. 2) You can market something to "cheerleaders" and "jocks" all you want, but the fact is D&D (the BRAND) is still considered a pastime ridden with geek-stank. True, long-term creative marketing MIGHT be able to help overcome this stigma partially, but the fact is that D&D (the BRAND) is associated with geeks, statistics, a lot of reading - And guys with big swords that fling allies and blast eldritch powers from their fingertips... In order to appeal to a larger (or different) group of people, an effort must be made to recognize these facts. I think there are ways to do this without changing the rules. This was my reasoning behind adding DnD to Hasbro's own Family Game Night. We should start before the stigma hits. 3) The obvious answer and workaround to point 2 is to create NEW brands. These new brands use the same basic concepts as D&D, but are instead configured to be less rules-heavy and integrate characters and or settings that appeal to these other demographics. I'm not talking about merely a "basic set" D&D here. I'm talking about different, lite but COMPATIBLE games that not only bring in new players because of the different appeal, but also might funnel those players into D&D (the BRAND) if RPGs turn out to be something they like. The reason those "basic D&D" sets failed in the past was because they're still "D&D," and they're put on the shelf right next to the other D&D products! Confusion, poor marketing, and branding is why they didn't sell. From everything I have read on this, when TSR was producing so many settings and systems, they diluted their brand rather than strengthened it. The idea was to show that the DnD engine could do quite a bit. However, gamers started to see themselves as Planscapers or Spelljammers rather than DnD gamers and they would fixate only on purchasing the products for their favorite setting. This would probably be even more true with the increased costs of the books while people's disposable income has remained rather stagnant. By addressing these other markets and slowly tying them into the D&D brand, WOTC would not only grow their revenue substantially, but also lock in new generations and demographics of players... All the while slowly erasing the geek-stigma of the core brand. Like I said before, TSR tried this and it backfired horribly. I don't think WotC should be diluting their brand too much. Diversity will do that because gamers are a very niche market. Even if we beat the stigma, people who play games are still a rather small market. Games in general sell well, specific games tend to do only ok in sales unless there are tournaments (Scrabble, Chess, etc.). I know DnD has tournaments, but I don't know how well those will do when exposed to the outside world. |
| shadzar07-17-07, 11:54 AM | Cheerleader the RPG? Is it based off of that movie? yup. thats why the next sentence said... you can't make games for non-gamers. :rolleyes: |
| shadzar07-17-07, 11:58 AM | Indeed, at least in my European country, we make fun of the stereotypes the americans seem to have against gamers. But D&D propaganda is awfully low. Most people around here only know there is a game called D&D, and thats' it. look at the history of D&D and the stupid superstitious people that have attacked it (mostly in southern USA) over the years. that is why it is looked at that way in america. because people felt like attacking something new that they didn't understnad. then again those southerners thought they had the right to own other people.... :rolleyes: |
| MOTHdevil07-17-07, 12:05 PM | I think we can all see this. I think that each idea should be looked at and its merits considered. This is how the big business decisions work. In theory this should work. In practice it destroyed TSR. This is where WotC should be seeking out 3rd parties to produce these products with the idea that WotC gets some of the profits. When I say seeking, I mean actually going to the other companies not waiting for them to go to WotC. I think there are ways to do this without changing the rules. This was my reasoning behind adding DnD to Hasbro's own Family Game Night. We should start before the stigma hits. From everything I have read on this, when TSR was producing so many settings and systems, they diluted their brand rather than strengthened it. The idea was to show that the DnD engine could do quite a bit. However, gamers started to see themselves as Planscapers or Spelljammers rather than DnD gamers and they would fixate only on purchasing the products for their favorite setting. This would probably be even more true with the increased costs of the books while people's disposable income has remained rather stagnant. Like I said before, TSR tried this and it backfired horribly. I don't think WotC should be diluting their brand too much. Diversity will do that because gamers are a very niche market. Even if we beat the stigma, people who play games are still a rather small market. Games in general sell well, specific games tend to do only ok in sales unless there are tournaments (Scrabble, Chess, etc.). I know DnD has tournaments, but I don't know how well those will do when exposed to the outside world. Ok... I understand your points, however the crux of most of your arguments are mostly "that TSR tried this..." By my account, TSR was a small business that didn't grow properly. Just because TSR tried some half-assed variations on what I suggested, it doesn't mean they wouldn't work. In the Spell Jammer and Planescape scenario you pointed out, IIRC both of these were produced as campaign settings, like Dark Sun, Birthright, Mystara, Al Qadim, and other stuff that came out around that time. All of these were produced under the D&D brand and still required you to use the core rulesbooks. Let's also not forget the "AD&D" vs. "D&D" ridculousness that further made it confusing. TSR was just throwing out any and every idea they could come up with, in addition to churning out modules that didin't seem to sell well. It's no wonder to me this idea (though similar to mine) didn't work. The concept and follow-through were heavily flawed. Again, in all respects, all of these things were done under the singular D&D brand. In addition to not marketing outside the normal gamers circles, this is why none of these ideas caught on to any real degree. |
| Rustmonster07-17-07, 02:52 PM | [I][B] Let me preface this by saying I DO have business knowledge. Not about RPGs specifically, but I DO have a degree and work experience in this, so when I'm speaking here, it's not entirely from a geek POV. I don't make a habit running my mouth off on things I'm unqualified to speak about. Well, since you have just stated you have no knowledge about the RPG business, I beleive you are unqualified to speak from anything but a players point of veiw. not only are you running your mouth of, you are also suggesting that you are better than the normal "geek" who plays D&D, because you have SO much experience in areas that are not specific enough to what you are talking about to be useful. If you weren't, I don't care. You are still acting as if you know more things than anyone here about how WoTC works. Why are you posting this in a forum for PLAYERS if you are trying, essentially, to make a marketing idea to WoTC? 1) D&D is D&D. It is a BRAND. Producing additional games with a compatible rules-set will not dilute the existing quality of the brand. It will not replace the brand. The brand you know and love continues to exist. Conceptually, it would actually INCREASE the overall quality of the core brand, since with additional revenue streams, WOTC will not be forced to milk their core group with unneeded books - only books that have merit would need be published. THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU HAVE SUGGESTED PUTTING "UPDATE" BOOKS FROM THINGS NOT RELATED TO D&D INTO D&D, AS OPOSSED TO SAYING THAT THEY COULD MARKET THIS UNDER D20 SYSTEM. Look, since you haven't been listening, I'll say it again: Harry Potter/Narnia/Naruto/Inuyasha/Disney/Mortal Kombat/Soul Caliber/Castlevania/Pirates of the Carribean/Etc don't fit into the game titled "D&D". However, if WoTC made a deal with the trademark holders of these things, they could work in conjunction to make the idea into a d20 system game. It would not be "D&D", it would be "Harry Potter/Narnia/Naruto/Inuyasha/Disney/Mortal Kombat/Soul Caliber/Castlevania/Pirates of the Carribean/Etc: d20 System." I also guess that for some reason your vast business experience did not teach you that WoTC does not own the licence to a great number of things. They can't just say, "hey, let's make 'Harry Potter: d20 System'." They must get the licence rights from the related company, person, etc. And as well, all of your "market to demographic" things would not be solved by annual "update" books. Oh ya, remember those? Wasn't that what the post was about? Seems like you forgot. Now all you post is "market to audience blah blah blah". The problem is that even if you make "Frilly Fairy Valley with Unicorns: A D&D suppliment book", little girls will not buy it. Why? Because they would not play D&D. The simple fact that it says "D&D" probably turns them off it. But then again, if they are curious, they will still not buy it. Why? The suppliment would NOT have the core rules in it. They would have to buy other books to go with it. They would buy it, and get turned off that it talks about things not covered in the book. Then again, if they became so interested that they might buy the PHB, It would still come down to: Do they like the concept of D&D? And then we are back at square one. The BEST way to get a bigger userbase would be to market in magazines with ads that target the audience of said magazine. In some of my copies of EGM, for example, they show a guy in his basement in the dark staring blankly at a computer screen, assumably playing a video game. It says under "If you want to pretend to be an elf, you might as well do it with friends". I LOVED this ad. It's funny! It targets video gamers in a videogame magazine. it makes them think "Hmm, I like friends, and I like pretending to be an elf, so maybe I'll look into this D&D thing." It did for me at least:D . Before, I always looked at the stigma of D&D: nerds, geeks, etc. I was an avid video gamer. I read this ad, and thought "well, maybe they are right. In the games I am pretending I am something like an elf. I like playing with my friends as well. Maybe this is something we can do together that allows us to play pretend together. Maybe it's not so bad. When I think about it, I AM playing alone in my basement. I guess D&D can't be any worse than that. I'll give it a shot!" And that's why I'm here today. If they had made a book like "Soul Caliber: D&D Suppliment", I wouldn't have been interested. Even if it IS Soul Caliber, it's also D&D, which is lame. I'd rather play Soul Caliber the video game. I probably wouldn't even be IN a store that sold D&D. Now those places are like a candy shop. You have to get people interested in D&D BEFORE you attempt to sell them a book, not the other way round. |
| Sarella Starshine07-17-07, 03:02 PM | Ok, there are other RPGs out there. Not every single RPG follows D&D either. If what you say is true, that the D&D 'brand' has the 'geek-stank' and that producing another game but without the D&D 'brand' that game should do well, then why isn't the non-D&D RPGs doing better than D&D? WotC produces a couple of games that are 'compatable' with D&D but are not under the D&D 'brand'. D20 modern is one. the Star Wars RPG (which underwent a massive rules revision that is still d20, but with a twist) is another. Why aren't these games doing well outside the 'gamer' market? the d20 licence allows any publisher that follows the rules for the d20 licence to make and produce gaming books that are compatible with D&D (since D&D uses the d20rules) yet are as about as far away from the D&D 'brand' as one can get, yet none of these have escaped the 'geek-stank' that is prevalent not just with D&D, but with the entire RPG hobby. And, thats not touching the other systems that are not D&D 'compatable'. You want WotC to release yet another RPG that is outside the D&D 'brand' yet make it compatable with the D&D brand, and of course, you have to market it, yet avoid the 'we think you can't handle the 'real' D&D RPG so here is one that we think you will like, but since its not the 'real' D&D RPG, its not geeky!' I have never ever said anything about 'D&D is for smart people only'. I feel personally if someone can read, write and so simple arthmatic they can play D&D. I don't agree that releasing yet another RPG is the way to get non-gamers gaming. Regardless if that RPG is 'girl flavored', a Harry Potter RPG, or a 'rules lite' D&D. We need to remove the 'geek-stank' off RPGs FIRST. And, the best way to do that, is a marketing campaign that shows how cool RPGs really are. Once, we have beaten the 'geek-stank' off RPGs, THEN we (in general) can branch out. |
| Anaxander07-17-07, 04:11 PM | My thoughts exactly mrs Starshine... It's not the D&D brand that's the problem, it's roleplaying in general which has a lot of stereotypes. (For most people, D&D and roleplaying are equal) |
| MOTHdevil07-17-07, 05:02 PM | Well, since you have just stated you have no knowledge about the RPG business, I beleive you are unqualified to speak from anything but a players point of veiw. not only are you running your mouth of, you are also suggesting that you are better than the normal "geek" who plays D&D, because you have SO much experience in areas that are not specific enough to what you are talking about to be useful. If you weren't, I don't care. You are still acting as if you know more things than anyone here about how WoTC works. Why are you posting this in a forum for PLAYERS if you are trying, essentially, to make a marketing idea to WoTC? So... uh, I guess I should just continue to work at the pizza place I did in high school, because apparently in your world knowledge is not transferable. And no, I don't know specifically about how WOTC works, but the de facto situation here is that WOTC is a company, out to make a profit, just like any other company. That at least qualifies me to speak from related experience. To use a D&D reference, it's called "skill synergy." Maybe you should look it up. THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU HAVE SUGGESTED PUTTING "UPDATE" BOOKS FROM THINGS NOT RELATED TO D&D INTO D&D, AS OPOSSED TO SAYING THAT THEY COULD MARKET THIS UNDER D20 SYSTEM. And while you're looking up the definition of "synergy," you might want to reacquaint yourself with nearly all my other posts... You know... the ones that specifically said THE NEW SUPPLEMENTS WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED PART OF D&D, MERELY COMPATIBLE WITH IT. I don't know how much clearly I need to make that. Look, since you haven't been listening, I'll say it again: Harry Potter/Narnia/Naruto/Inuyasha/Disney/Mortal Kombat/Soul Caliber/Castlevania/Pirates of the Carribean/Etc don't fit into the game titled "D&D". Pot and kettle, my friend. Again, please READ my posts before attacking me and my ideas. Thanks. 'Preciate it. However, if WoTC made a deal with the trademark holders of these things, they could work in conjunction to make the idea into a d20 system game. It would not be "D&D", it would be "Harry Potter/Narnia/Naruto/Inuyasha/Disney/Mortal Kombat/Soul Caliber/Castlevania/Pirates of the Carribean/Etc: d20 System." I also guess that for some reason your vast business experience did not teach you that WoTC does not own the licence to a great number of things. They can't just say, "hey, let's make 'Harry Potter: d20 System'." They must get the licence rights from the related company, person, etc. Uh... yeah. I know that too. I'm pretty certain I already mentioned WOTC should look into acquiring the rights... Usually you ACQUIRE something because you don't already OWN it. I don't need vast business experience to figure that out. Just a dictionary. And if WOTC can't afford said rights, what's stopping them from something homebrewed for the target demographic in the same vein as "Wizard School?" They've already started homebrewed young adult stuff under Mirrorstone, this isn't a far step past that. And as well, all of your "market to demographic" things would not be solved by annual "update" books. Oh ya, remember those? Wasn't that what the post was about? Seems like you forgot. Now all you post is "market to audience blah blah blah". Wow, pal, who crammed the unicorn up YOUR posterior? Didn't get your Wheaties today? No need to keep ratcheting up the nasty. Umm... yeah... If you READ what preceded this (since you're hellbent on now attacking me), the least you could do is notice the part where I recognized that wasn't a popular idea and then changed it. At no point did I deviate from the intention of the original post, which is what can WOTC do as an alternative to 4E? The problem is that even if you make "Frilly Fairy Valley with Unicorns: A D&D suppliment book", little girls will not buy it. Why? Because they would not play D&D. The simple fact that it says "D&D" probably turns them off it. But then again, if they are curious, they will still not buy it. Why? The suppliment would NOT have the core rules in it. They would have to buy other books to go with it. They would buy it, and get turned off that it talks about things not covered in the book. Then again, if they became so interested that they might buy the PHB, It would still come down to: Do they like the concept of D&D? And then we are back at square one. How many times do I have to say this to you? D&D is a BRAND. These proposed games are parallel development outside the brand and are NOT D&D, merely compatible. Please understand my ideas before hosing all over it. It's the least you can do if you're going to continue posting negative comments. The BEST way to get a bigger userbase would be to market in magazines with ads that target the audience of said magazine. In some of my copies of EGM, for example, they show a guy in his basement in the dark staring blankly at a computer screen, assumably playing a video game. It says under "If you want to pretend to be an elf, you might as well do it with friends". I LOVED this ad. You loved the ad because you already play. You ARE the target audience. I also liked the Bruce Campbell Old Spice ads, but it doesn't mean they'll sell more deodorant. Continuing to produce ads for the same demographic that already buys something is kinda pointless. You have to get people interested in D&D BEFORE you attempt to sell them a book, not the other way round. In that, we agree. But I think there's other ways to get people interested in D&D rather than just pitching the idea directly to them, especially when certain facets of it may be a turn off to otherwise interested players. |
| Rustmonster07-17-07, 05:56 PM | You loved the ad because you already play. You ARE the target audience. I also liked the Bruce Campbell Old Spice ads, but it doesn't mean they'll sell more deodorant. Continuing to produce ads for the same demographic that already buys something is kinda pointless. No, I did not already play D&D. In fact, I said I thought it was stupid. |
| Rustmonster07-17-07, 05:59 PM | How many times do I have to say this to you? D&D is a BRAND. These proposed games are parallel development outside the brand and are NOT D&D, merely compatible. Please understand my ideas before hosing all over it. It's the least you can do if you're going to continue posting negative comments. You never said ANYWHERE that they would be "parrelel brands". You said annuals for the core books and the suppliment books. |
| Rustmonster07-17-07, 06:10 PM | So... uh, I guess I should just continue to work at the pizza place I did in high school, because apparently in your world knowledge is not transferable. And no, I don't know specifically about how WOTC works, but the de facto situation here is that WOTC is a company, out to make a profit, just like any other company. That at least qualifies me to speak from related experience. To use a D&D reference, it's called "skill synergy." Maybe you should look it up. And while you're looking up the definition of "synergy," you might want to reacquaint yourself with nearly all my other posts... You know... the ones that specifically said THE NEW SUPPLEMENTS WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED PART OF D&D, MERELY COMPATIBLE WITH IT. I don't know how much clearly I need to make that. Pot and kettle, my friend. Again, please READ my posts before attacking me and my ideas. Thanks. 'Preciate it. Uh... yeah. I know that too. I'm pretty certain I already mentioned WOTC should look into acquiring the rights... Usually you ACQUIRE something because you don't already OWN it. I don't need vast business experience to figure that out. Just a dictionary. And if WOTC can't afford said rights, what's stopping them from something homebrewed for the target demographic in the same vein as "Wizard School?" They've already started homebrewed young adult stuff under Mirrorstone, this isn't a far step past that. Wow, pal, who crammed the unicorn up YOUR posterior? Didn't get your Wheaties today? No need to keep ratcheting up the nasty. Umm... yeah... If you READ what preceded this (since you're hellbent on now attacking me), the least you could do is notice the part where I recognized that wasn't a popular idea and then changed it. At no point did I deviate from the intention of the original post, which is what can WOTC do as an alternative to 4E? How many times do I have to say this to you? D&D is a BRAND. These proposed games are parallel development outside the brand and are NOT D&D, merely compatible. Please understand my ideas before hosing all over it. It's the least you can do if you're going to continue posting negative comments. You loved the ad because you already play. You ARE the target audience. I also liked the Bruce Campbell Old Spice ads, but it doesn't mean they'll sell more deodorant. Continuing to produce ads for the same demographic that already buys something is kinda pointless. In that, we agree. But I think there's other ways to get people interested in D&D rather than just pitching the idea directly to them, especially when certain facets of it may be a turn off to otherwise interested players. I am highly offended by your post. Get off your high horse. This entire thread is completely useless. It only proves that you are stuborn, and that you are willing to constantly use arguments that make no sense while trying tomake others feel lower than you. I don't give a crpa if if you have a peice of paper saying "business" on it. The point is, your idea is flawed, and peopel have pointed this out, but you won't listen. No one on the PLAYER forums wants to hear your asinine ideas of how WoTC can increase revenue by using some sort of annuals that are targeted at groups who don't play the game. "Annuals" that target groups that don't play games will not stop 4E. When 4E comes, it is because 4E comes. 4E is not a bad thing. You were so busy trying to save face and changing the subject so you don't look like a fool, that you don't seem to be on the topic of 4E anymore. You are a frustrating, intolerable person. Don't ever, EVER attack me like this again. Yes, I was being critical, yes, I was being slightly rude. But I was also trying to show you why this isn't a good idea. All you did was treat me like I was some 3 year old who didn't have his nap yet. You barely addressed the things I said, you just said "read my post again, I'm better than you, it's okey for me to insult you because I have a degree, I'm not listening because I'm better than you." |
| MOTHdevil07-17-07, 10:05 PM | Ok... Here we go again. You said this: The BEST way to get a bigger userbase would be to market in magazines with ads that target the audience of said magazine. In some of my copies of EGM, for example, they show a guy in his basement in the dark staring blankly at a computer screen, assumably playing a video game. It says under "If you want to pretend to be an elf, you might as well do it with friends". I LOVED this ad. It's funny! It targets video gamers in a videogame magazine. it makes them think "Hmm, I like friends, and I like pretending to be an elf, so maybe I'll look into this D&D thing." To which I said this: You loved the ad because you already play. You ARE the target audience. You are partially correct. I am guilty of not throughly reading that paragraph, and in that I am hypocritical. However, as a reader of EGM, you are still part of the target audience I was referring to, so my point is still valid. You then said this: You never said ANYWHERE that they would be "parrelel brands". You said annuals for the core books and the suppliment books. To which I refer you to this, in my 10:12am post: The obvious answer and workaround to point 2 is to create NEW brands. These new brands use the same basic concepts as D&D, but are instead configured to be less rules-heavy and integrate characters and or settings that appeal to these other demographics. and then I said Create new games using the D&D mechanics. Use ideas and concepts that appeal to people outside of the pulp fantasy D&D mostly represents. Format these games differently. Distribute them differently. Advertise them differently. I now direct you to Webster's definition of Parallel: 1. Not meeting or intersecting, however far extended: said of straight lines or planes. I don't see how much more parallel my ideas could have been without utilizing that specific word. If I made an error in not refering to it that way earlier, then I apologize, however my ideas have been pretty cleanly laid out since the beginning. In this thread so far there have been two: Point 1 was that WOTC might benefit from releasing an annual rules compendium, rather than a system overhaul (edition) every few years. This idea was shot down by most everyone. I quickly and graciously conceded the idea as an unpopular opinion and moved onto: Point 2, which was that WOTC could dramatically increase their overall sales by creating separate games utilizing a simpler D&D mechanic that incorporated popular themes into a combo campaign/rules book. These books would NOT alter or replace D&D in any way. They would be produced in ADDITION (or parallel, if you will) to the 3.5 (or eventual 4E product) WOTC releases. And so we move on... I am highly offended by your post. Get off your high horse. This entire thread is completely useless. It only proves that you are stuborn, and that you are willing to constantly use arguments that make no sense while trying tomake others feel lower than you. I don't give a crpa if if you have a peice of paper saying "business" on it. The point is, your idea is flawed, and peopel have pointed this out, but you won't listen. No one on the PLAYER forums wants to hear your asinine ideas of how WoTC can increase revenue by using some sort of annuals that are targeted at groups who don't play the game. You're offended by MY post?! I try to offer an opinion from experience, and you guys ******** me like I'm telling you to punch your mom in the face. It's a freakin' game, for crying out loud. I make the observation that (shocker) some girls like girly-things and I get jumped on. I make the observation that D&D is a geeky game that appeals to geeky people and I get jumped on. I offer ideas and hypothetical solutions and I get jumped on. Have I seen any creative ideas from your end, or most of the others in this thread? No. All I see are sarcastic remarks, biased opinion, thinly disguised attacks, and poor grammar and spell checking. And frankly, not many people HAVE pointed out my "point 2" idea as flawed. Only a few. And of those few, only a couple even BOTHER to offer constructive, unbiased criticism that ranks above "gee, Mothdevil, your idea is dumb." You got any better ideas? Step up to the plate, buddy. I'm waiting to see your ingenious plans. "Annuals" that target groups that don't play games will not stop 4E. *!**!**!**!**!* Hear that? It's the sound of me whacking my head against the desk in frustration. Once again, this thread contains TWO different ideas from me. They are independent of each other. When 4E comes, it is because 4E comes. 4E is not a bad thing. You were so busy trying to save face and changing the subject so you don't look like a fool, that you don't seem to be on the topic of 4E anymore. Umm... no. No I'm not. The original intent of this thread was to brainstorm an idea for WOTC to increase their revenue and offer an alternative to this "new edition" cycle. I freely admitted my first idea of "annuals" was unpopular. I still believe in it, but frankly, I saw no point in arguing an idea no one posting here agreed with. That is why I ADMITTED it was not a popular idea (call it bad, call it different, call it odd, call it teh suck... I don't care), and moved on to the other one. I was NOT trying to duck anything. I was not trying to "save face" on a freaking D&D forum. I have better things to do with my time, and frankly I'm amazed I have to keep popping on here to type THIS kind of crap rather than something productive, but rather than ignore this thread because it's something you don't like, you keep posting here. LET IT GO. You are a frustrating, intolerable person. Don't ever, EVER attack me like this again. I'M frustrating? Then we're two of a kind. Again, as I pointed out, this is a D&D forum. The fact that we're resorting to this type of conversation over a GAME is kinda scary to me. I came here to share an idea that I thought was positive, and instead I get dragged down by people who have nothing positive to offer in return. Yes, I was being critical, yes, I was being slightly rude. But I was also trying to show you why this isn't a good idea. All you did was treat me like I was some 3 year old who didn't have his nap yet. You barely addressed the things I said, you just said "read my post again, I'm better than you, it's okey for me to insult you because I have a degree, I'm not listening because I'm better than you." Ironically, I find it most insulting that you think I'm not paying attention to you, since I've devoted HUNDREDS of words at this point responding specifically TO YOU. How much more attention do you need? Did I ever SAY or even IMPLY I was "better" than anyone else on here? I merely pointed out I have at least a tangent background and work experience that gives me more insight than some of the people posting in this thread. And you guys wonder why the outside world views things like D&D in such a bad light... Anyhow, since this thread is steering towards "locked" territory, I'm going to throw in my last words, since thread is clearly not going to be salvaged: I'm sorry I posted this crap in the first place. Apparently, I was expecting constructive responses. I have no issues with criticism, but I DO have issues with people just shooting my ideas down without offering anything creative in return. That crap gets my blood boiling, and though I don't regret anything I wrote, I do regret if people interpreted some of my comments in directions I didn't intend. So... Rustmonster, Sarella, and anyone else I apparently cheesed off - sorry. /venom |
| Alex_P07-17-07, 11:50 PM | Quickie shotgun comments: The thing is, D&D magic is NOT Harry Potter magic, D&D weapons are NOT videogame weapons, D&D super powers are NOT manga super powers.Sorry, D&D weapons are basically video-game weapons. Pretty much D&D anything is video-game something, because the console/computer RPG genre grew out of the direct emulation of pen-and-paper D&D. Weapons in particular, because video games and various pen-and-paper knock-offs pretty much copied D&D's unrealistic fantasy-pastiche weapons wholesale. Heck, even Cloud's infamous "buster sword," touted as one of the worst examples of stupid "video game" or "anime" tropes, is inspired by D&D. It's a bit of a misreading of D&D, to be sure, but it's definitely based on someone's experience with D&D. And the stupid giant swords are all over American fantasy fiction from the 60s and 70s (often being wielded by roid-ragin' barbarians wandering around chopping redshirt city guards in half), which is what built up the general culture out of which D&D emerged in the first place. Face it, people who would snub a game because it has math and text wouldn't play D&D no matter what is on the cover.I'd snub a game that had a lot of unnecessary math or text in a heartbeat, because that's a sign that the game isn't very well-designed to begin with. What qualifies as "unnecessary" is different for different people. Creativity is a subjective thing, too, and I think it's fair to say that a lot of people wouldn't consider the specific actions involved in playing D&D to be much more "creative," even when equipped with a fairly accurate picture of what goes on during a D&D session. (Me, personally? Meh, it's just a game.) -- Alex |
| Sarella Starshine07-18-07, 12:29 AM | I am not ticked. Bewildered perhaps, but not ticked. We are saying that WotC should not need to make a 'seperate yet equal' game to target different audiences. They just need to create advertising that is geared to different audiences. While most of us do agree that to some extent, diversity is a good thing for a company to have. But, you will have to know your market and your target consumers before you release a new product. WtoC has released statement after statement why they publish only the books they do and licenced out others (until recently, in which they declined to renew all or nearly all thier licences). The statement basicly says: in order to maximize our profits with D&D and the d20 line, the amount of setting specific books have to be restricted. To offset the restriction on the amount of setting specific books, we will release a larger number of generic books that can be used regardless of setting. Now, what they did do, was to actively incurage smaller publishing companies the right to publish books that are compatable with D&D. These companies agree to a set of rules and standards that need to be met before they can publish the book, but when they do, they can use a logo that can be used as an identifier as being compatable. This is the D20 licence. WotC even opened up the contents of the core rule books (and a few others) as opensource, the SRD. Because of these practices, not only is D&D thriving, but the entire RPG industry. This is great. However, none of this has helped remove the 'geek-stank' off of RPGs. When you first came here, you thought you had a great way to 'prevent' a 4th ed. It got shot down. The thing is, with the current set up now for 3.5 (and one would hopefully hold true for 4.0) is that there is 1-3 books one *must* buy (PHB if you are a player, PHB, DMG, MM if you are a DM). Ever. Every single other book (and accessory) out there is strictly optional. If you don't want it, don't buy it. A very simple concept. Any minor rule changes or clarifications will be put online for free. Your original idea would be that not only will someone have to buy the core rule books, but also anual updates (some thought that the anual updates would be 1 per core book, others didn't). It got shot down because most of us feel that any cost beyond the initial investment should be strictly optional, and not have some costs be manditory (be like buying an OS, then paying for every patch to that OS, instead of buying an OS, getting updates and patches to that OS until a new OS is released which needs to be bought). You then came up with a different, yet similar idea of adding more diverisity. You said they can create books that target different audiences (a 'girly' book for girls, a 'harry potter' book for the harry potter auduience, etc.). Your original presentation of these books made it seem like these would be themed D&D books (along the lines of dracanomicon, libris mortis). You then clarified that these books would not be D&D, as the audience for these books would be your non-traditional D&D book buyers, but actual fully supported different gaming systems, that would be compatable with D&D. You feel that doing this will pull more people into D&D. We gave you some examples of why we felt this was a bad idea, and gave you counter ideas (instead of diversifiying the product, diversifiy the marketing and ads), but were agreeing in the prinicpal behind it, getting more people into D&D. Then, it went downhill from there. |
| shadzar07-18-07, 01:43 AM | MOTHdevil simpler version of the game just wouldn't work. people today are still confused by "advanced" dungeons and dragons as being a game for players that are more experienced. and don't understand the players need not be advanced to play AD&D over B/OD&D, but AD&D itself has advanced system making it an entirely new game over the other D&Ds. this would be the same thing with a watered down version of D&D for people to be introduced to first if it was a seperate game. then people would think they could graduate form the "beginner" version into the regular version. and this simply wouldn't work, because things would be missing or altered between the two games. unless i have also misread what you meant by parralel. the best thing is the game would need to be something else other than D&D altogether so as to not confuse people. Alex_P Horse Puckey! D&D weaponry is not video game weaponry. even though you claim that video games come from D&D lineage your statements would have it sound the other way around as many people think that D&D was born from video games. D&D and all other game take from history and myth. D&D was not the first ever role-playing game. some could not be mentioned on these boards. it was just the one that got peoples attentions first. most fantasy style RPGS take things from history or books and the physical objects that can be researched everywhere. the point of the previous poster was just saying that D&D isn't directly comparable to these other worlds of Harry Potter, Naruto, Final Fantasy, Zelda, etc they may be similar in style, but you can't directly incorporate them into D&D. Sarella Starshine Seems there may be several reasons for WotC to not renew those licenses that could involve a possible 4E. those other things were outselling WotC release material. WotC wishes to use those things in 4E. WotC wishes to alter or destroy the OGL with the creation of 4E so is securing those licenses back so no one can use them. there will never be a 4E and D&D is about to be cancelled as a line. The only setting for D&D will be Eberron in the future. |
| Alex_P07-18-07, 02:45 AM | Shadzar, The video game "RPG" genre is unambiguously descendant from D&D, having grown out of attempts to replicate D&D in computerized form. A lot of fantasy RPGs today don't borrow from myth or history or whatever. They borrow specifically from D&D. You can tell because they have the same little weird bits in 'em. If we're talking about weapons specifically, examples include D&D's screwy progression of swords, the three damage types, the whole abstraction of "more weapons = more attacks." D&D itself borrows a lot from fantasy pastiche. Gygax et al. certainly read through myth and history, but the universe the rules describe is more like a mixture of Dying Earth, The Hobbit, and knock-off Conan stories than any kind of simulation of reality or myth. That's why it's got a lot of its little quirks in the first place. That's since become its own subgenre -- D&D fantasy, -- which has been propagated widely in different media. Fantasy-themed games -- both CRPGs and pen-and-paper games -- tend to borrow heavily from D&D fantasy and pretty much ignore the other flavors. For good or for ill, D&D is very strongly responsible for making video games what they are today. -- Alex |
| shadzar07-18-07, 07:46 AM | so every fantasy story nowadays is derived from D&D is what you are saying, no matter what medium it is in? you should do more research on the history of games in general. everything is not as derived form D&D as you would think. it would be like saying every card game comes from poker. |
| Steely_Dan07-18-07, 08:31 AM | yup. thats why the next sentence said... :rolleyes: Well, now that you've edited it… |
| shadzar07-18-07, 11:22 AM | yup. thats why the next sentence said... :rolleyes: Well, now that you've edited it… funny the vBulletin coding records when edits are made to post to show that things have been changed, and at what time. if you check post #88 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13096211&postcount=88) of this thread you will notice no such editing has occured. feel free to search the entire forums or any vBulletin forum and you will notice the "edited" line when things have been edited. if it isn't there then the post wasnt edited, or was edited within a minute or so of its original posting AND no one else has made a post since. anytime someone has made a post after a previous post the edited line will appear. before you accuse someone of lying via altering a previous post, make sure you understand the software being used on the forum and how it works. :rolleyes: |
| UltimateReality07-18-07, 03:11 PM | vBulletin coding records when edits are made to post to show that things have been changed, and at what time. Unless you make an edit in the first five minutes after posting and don't put a reason in the "Edit:" box. |
| Anaxander07-18-07, 03:36 PM | funny the vBulletin coding records when edits are made to post to show that things have been changed, and at what time. if you check post #88 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13096211&postcount=88) of this thread you will notice no such editing has occured. feel free to search the entire forums or any vBulletin forum and you will notice the "edited" line when things have been edited. if it isn't there then the post wasnt edited, or was edited within a minute or so of its original posting AND no one else has made a post since. anytime someone has made a post after a previous post the edited line will appear. before you accuse someone of lying via altering a previous post, make sure you understand the software being used on the forum and how it works. :rolleyes: Funny that I too noticed your mistake, but at that time wasn't interested in giving a lame comment on it. |
| Alex_P07-18-07, 08:30 PM | so every fantasy story nowadays is derived from D&D is what you are saying, no matter what medium it is in? you should do more research on the history of games in general. everything is not as derived form D&D as you would think. it would be like saying every card game comes from poker.That's NOT "all" fantasy. It's a particularly popular and overused subgenre. CRPGs like Everquest and Oblivion recapitulate almost all of the tropes of D&D. You've got books and cartoons that are direct retellings of D&D campaigns. Tabletop RPGs are even more prone to recycling ideas from D&D; it's a mixture of habit and flat-out laziness. There are, in fact, a variety of card games that come from poker. They rely on the same core concepts of bluffing and bidding. Most of them -- even a few with pretty radically different mechanics -- are still called "poker," even! And the key here is in the fundamental assumptions (many so ubiquitous that lots of folks just parrot them without ever realizing it these days), not the details. Just like "Life" is pretty much just a glorified game of "chutes and ladders." ;) -- Alex |
| shadzar07-18-07, 11:56 PM | here i got the perfect alternate to 4e found in AD&D 1st edtion DMG.... http://i15.tinypic.com/6g1xg69.jpg |
| Steely_Dan07-19-07, 03:40 AM | funny the vBulletin coding records when edits are made to post to show that things have been changed, and at what time. if you check post #88 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13096211&postcount=88) of this thread you will notice no such editing has occured. feel free to search the entire forums or any vBulletin forum and you will notice the "edited" line when things have been edited. if it isn't there then the post wasnt edited, or was edited within a minute or so of its original posting AND no one else has made a post since. anytime someone has made a post after a previous post the edited line will appear. before you accuse someone of lying via altering a previous post, make sure you understand the software being used on the forum and how it works. :rolleyes: Please, you know what you did. |
| TheDarkLord07-19-07, 04:47 PM | then again those southerners thought they had the right to own other people.... :rolleyes: This right here pretty much discredits you. 90%+ of southerners Did not own slaves, and a good deal of slaves were owned north of the Mason Dixon for your information. Also, most southerners were against slavery, that's why if you ever read the Articles of the Confederation, slavery was going to be banned in the south as well. History is written by the winner as the quote goes, but the Civil war was not fought over Slavery, it was fought over the fact that we, and we still don't, want the federal government to tell states what to do. It should function as an intermediary between states, used for foreign affairs, and maintain a national defense. Do not make accusations or broad statements like the one you posted above, the slanted media is NOT a source of fact, as proven day in and day out by the corrections THEY have to admit too. |
| shadzar07-20-07, 02:10 AM | This right here pretty much discredits you. 90%+ of southerners Did not own slaves, and a good deal of slaves were owned north of the Mason Dixon for your information. funny i never said ALL, if you read what you quoted yourself. i said "those". maybe you shouldn't attack a statement unless you read it first. ;) |
| TheDarkLord07-20-07, 04:07 PM | funny i never said ALL, if you read what you quoted yourself. i said "those". maybe you shouldn't attack a statement unless you read it first. ;) "Those Southerners" is a very broad statement, including both some and all ;). |
| shadzar07-20-07, 05:22 PM | "Those Southerners" is a very broad statement, including both some and all ;). the would more imply ALL rather than those that implies a group or part thereof. which trucks? the trucks. those trucks rather than those other trucks. either way the point still remains "those" southerners. how about this as an alternative to 4E. a comprehensive set of books that more clearly explain the reason to play D&D, what limits it has, and what duties the players and DM have. also for the incompotent people that would see it as more than a mere game a description explaining to all, once and for all, that the game is merely a game, and not satanic bible, or some other detrimental thing. it just happens to be a game where intelligence is required which some people (including newspersons) obviously don't have. blah. this thread has gotten too silly and pointless for me to respond anymore, but i will gladly continue to read and laguh at some of the posts herein. |