| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1part-human2Jul 22, 2008 21:58:42 | Please don't call them Monster Manual II, Player's Handbook II, etc "II". I think 4th edition robbed flavor from the rules and version 3.5 had a very "digital-aged" naming convention as well. And we already have Monster Manual II, Player's Handbook II, DMG II. Would it be so bad as to ask to make the new sequel books as "Volume II?" The Monster Manual Volume II. I think it would add some "non-digital-aged" feel to the books in question. The Player's Handbook Volume II. Yes/no? |
| #2theninjadJul 22, 2008 22:03:41 | I understand where you are coming from. Still, what you suggest doesn't seem to have any really strong purpose and will not change the minds of the people that made the naming decision long ago. |
| #3BelorinJul 22, 2008 22:48:33 | Monster Manual I & II+ have been around since 1E. Then 2E's loose leaf Monstrous Manual & Appendices and the subsequent Monstrous Compendiums. 3x's DMG II and PHB II were experimental and to me at least, sucessful, much like the earlier Unearthed Arcana. So call them DMG, MM, PHB I, II etc. or Volumes 1, 2, 3 or Annual's 1, 2, 3, just make sure they contain the quality of information your customers deserve. Bel |
| #4doctorhookJul 26, 2008 3:13:19 | Well, once we get up past III, things start to sound silly without "volume" in front of it. "Player's Handbook X" versus "Player's Handbook Volume X". "Volume" might also increase the apparent legitimacy of the "every book is core" plan; "Volume II" seems like a part of a whole, while simply "II" suggests, to me, a sequel or replacement, which we know it won't be. I like the "Volume" idea. I hope somebody is listening. |
| #5Titanium_DragonJul 26, 2008 15:13:13 | I don't like volume at all. II, III, ect. is better in my eyes, and in any event, everyone will just call them "two" anyway. |
| #6doctorhookJul 26, 2008 15:58:05 | I don't like volume at all. II, III, ect. is better in my eyes, and in any event, everyone will just call them "two" anyway. We will simply have to agree to disagree then, Titanium Dragon. |
| #7the_ubbergeekJul 26, 2008 16:04:01 | It's just semantic, guys... |
| #8ostrakonJul 26, 2008 17:22:18 | I think 4th edition robbed flavor from the rules lolwut? ::looks at flavor text written for ever power:: Uh, are you playing the same 4E I am? |
| #9doctorhookJul 27, 2008 0:33:13 | It's just semantic, guys... Ah, but according to marketing theory, the semantics of a product's name might have a HUGE impact upon its consumer reception. In theory. I vote for "Volume". |
| #10ShiftkittyJul 27, 2008 9:51:15 | That would call for a serious resetting at the typesetters and a reverse setting up of the originals as they'd have to go back, redo the covers to read Volume I on all of them because it would look ridiculous and shyster-y to not indicate ahead of time that there were going to be future volumes, then rerelease them, and the rest of us would have to sit through the complaining that they only did this for the money, how this is like when a periodical releases the same issue with four different "collectable" covers just so you'll pay four times as much for the same magazine, etc. I say, "Steady as she goes". I also second Ostrakon. I find nothing lacking in 4e's flavor, having played every edition available since 1974. (In fact, if you want "lack of flavor", read through the 1974 rules. They read like a college lecture transcript. Very dry.) |
| #11Alter_BoyJul 27, 2008 20:00:07 | Ah, but according to marketing theory, the semantics of a product's name might have a HUGE impact upon its consumer reception. In theory. Yeah. In 3ed, NOT having volume in it made the DMG II, PHB II, and the MM II-V sell better than the other splat books. I vote for "Not Volume". |
| #12akodoJul 27, 2008 21:41:16 | well, naming something "2" does imply it is a stand alone product built on the work of the first product. You didn't need to see the movie Home Alone to see the movie Home Alone 2. You don't need to buy Guitar Hero to play Guitar Hero 2. when you have the word 'volume' you are stating this is a continuation of the first, and without the first, you won't be able to get it to work properly The term annual means 'coming out yearly' and doesn't specify one way or the other which direciton is being taken. Becaue of that I believe it would be dishonest of Wizard to name it PHB2. They can put Volume in very small text if they wish, but just naming it PHB2 makes it sound like it is a replacement for, not a supliment to, PHB1 |
| #13doctorhookJul 28, 2008 11:19:07 | well, naming something "2" does imply it is a stand alone product built on the work of the first product. You didn't need to see the movie Home Alone to see the movie Home Alone 2. You don't need to buy Guitar Hero to play Guitar Hero 2. QFT. |
| #14unfamiliarAug 02, 2008 9:26:53 | No dice on adding "Volume" to the books. Sounds too much like an encyclopedia collection, IMO. |
| #15doctorhookAug 02, 2008 12:03:19 | No dice on adding "Volume" to the books. Sounds too much like an encyclopedia collection, IMO. ...That's kinda the effect they're going for, isn't it? "Encyclopedia Vol. 2: Anaconda - Arizona" can't replace "Vol. 1", and nor can "Player's Handbook (Volume) 2" replace the "Player's Handbook". You wouldn't have them call it, "Encyclopedia 2," would you? |
| #16unfamiliarAug 06, 2008 8:36:43 | I think some people here are insulting the average gamer's intelligence by implying that anyone in their right mind actually considers the PHBII a "replacement" to the original PHB, & that we need "Volume" added to the titles in order to clear that up for us. Looking back to 3.5, I don't seem to recall tossing out my "obsolete" PHB or scrapping my multi-classed fighter/wizard when I bought the PHBII & got to the duskblade class entry. Well, OK, I DID scrap the character, but I kept the book. Most of us are bright enough to realize that the anaconda at the start of doctorhook's Vol. 2: Anaconda - Arizona is not performing a violent coup to usurp Volume 1's aardvark & end his reign of terror, & those of us who are aware of how encyclopedias & D&D rulebooks work also realize that the druid we'll find in the PHBII is not a replacement for a fighter or cleric, but rather a welcome addition to the party. |
| #17thewergAug 07, 2008 6:01:05 | I think some people here are insulting the average gamer's intelligence by implying that anyone in their right mind actually considers the PHBII a "replacement" to the original PHB, & that we need "Volume" added to the titles in order to clear that up for us. Looking back to 3.5, I don't seem to recall tossing out my "obsolete" PHB or scrapping my multi-classed fighter/wizard when I bought the PHBII & got to the duskblade class entry. Well, OK, I DID scrap the character, but I kept the book. Uh... quick little anecdote here. When I first decided to DM, which was in 3.5, and went out to pick up my set of books, I originally purchased the Monster Manual II, believing that I was getting a superior and updated product which made the Monster Manual obsolete. And I'd like to think I'm a fairly intelligent person. So, yeah, I can see how adding "Volume" might provide a bit of clarity. |
| #18doctorhookAug 07, 2008 10:04:20 | Uh... quick little anecdote here. When I first decided to DM, which was in 3.5, and went out to pick up my set of books, I originally purchased the Monster Manual II, believing that I was getting a superior and updated product which made the Monster Manual obsolete. And I'd like to think I'm a fairly intelligent person. So, yeah, I can see how adding "Volume" might provide a bit of clarity. Absolutely. UnFamiliar: Obviously I'm not expecting experienced D&Ders to suddenly be incapable of figuring out which products they need. However, I am worried that any confusion caused by failing to properly label D&D supplements as such (given that all supplements are now officially considered "core") could frustrate and scare away potential new players. You're not going to tell me that D&D (or any legitimate hobby, for that matter) doesn't need to pursue new players, are you? |
| #19unfamiliarAug 08, 2008 9:43:06 | Absolutely. Just how many new gamers do you really think adding "Volume" to the titles would bring in, anyways? You act like it'll make or break the hobby, but I can't see it making a huge difference either way. Last time I checked, D&D was still steadily growing as a hobby, & all without the benefit of "properly labelling" the books with "Vol 1, 2, 3" in the titles. In this day & age, most new gamers should have a good idea what they need before they even set foot in the local book or gaming store, as long as they're capable of performing a simple Google search. But if they don't have a computer or Internet access, they can still ask a fellow human being a question or two once they're inside the store, so I see no reason why the naming convention of the books would prevent anyone from getting what they want. Whatever TheWerg may think about their own intelligence, five minutes spent researching online, a question or two directed to the sales staff, or even a quick flip through the pages of the MMII (before buying it) would've tipped him or her off that the MMII wasn't a replacement to the original MM. That's not even a "buyer beware" example, really - just a glaring oversight on their part, & hardly something worthy of changing the naming convention over. |
| #20doctorhookAug 08, 2008 21:08:17 | Just how many new gamers do you really think adding "Volume" to the titles would bring in, anyways? You act like it'll make or break the hobby, but I can't see it making a huge difference either way. Last time I checked, D&D was still steadily growing as a hobby, & all without the benefit of "properly labelling" the books with "Vol 1, 2, 3" in the titles. I never suggested that adding "Volume" would bring anyone into the hobby; instead, I suggested that not adding "Volume" could potentially confuse new players out of joining the hobby. I admit no expectation that this truly will make a significant difference to the size of the hobby; however, I for the potential that it might do so in a negative fashion. Don't you value psychological consistency, UnFamiliar? I do, and I believe publishers ought to as well. Consistency is a hallmark of professionalism and quality; taking the time to label one's products earnestly and accurately is indicative that a publisher is concerned enough about the reputation and quality of their products to ensure that even the little things are done right. (Obviously, the big things are important too.) Lofty goals, to be sure. I realize that WotC has not always achieved this standard, though I'd be surprised if any publisher managed to do so all the time. (I imagine even the Oxford English Dictionary encounters typographical errors from time to time.) However, I believe that it's in every publisher's interest to pursue this level of quality, and that's what this thread is about: a suggestion of relatively minimal consequence that could go a long way towards indicating quality. For what it's worth, I don't necessarily think the word "Volume" urgently needs to be on the cover of the first Player's Handbook (or DMG, or MM). It's the future volumes in the series that I worry about. In this day & age, most new gamers should have a good idea what they need before they even set foot in the local book or gaming store, as long as they're capable of performing a simple Google search. But if they don't have a computer or Internet access, they can still ask a fellow human being a question or two once they're inside the store, so I see no reason why the naming convention of the books would prevent anyone from getting what they want. Maybe you're right; maybe people should do more research before buying products. However, people don't always do, and at the moment, I don't believe either of us can change that. What can we do? Well, "we", the D&D community, can label our products clearly. This is more efficient and effective than trying to ensure that every bookstore clerk is fully trained, informed, and motivated to direct customers to the appropriate products. (They won't always be.) We can't count on the fact that every new player will be introduced to the game by someone else, (they won't always be), nor can we count on having an informed fan conveniently standing in front of every retail D&D shelf. (There won't be, most of the time.) Suffice to say, in order to encourage the growth of this community and this hobby, it's in the interests of fans and publishers alike to push for approachability and accessibility in all aspects of our hobby. Adding six tiny letters to the cover of future books is one simple way of doing this. |
| #21unfamiliarAug 13, 2008 20:56:29 | While I can see where you're coming from since you've made your points clearly, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree - but don't think for a second that I don't appreciate the rare debate around here that doesn't turn into a flame war. It's been fun, really. As for valuing psychological consistency, I didn't realize I gave the impression that I didn't think it worked both ways. Sure, I don't see the lack of "Volume" having such a negative effect that it keeps many people from getting involved in D&D, but by the same logic, I don't believe including it in subsequent titles would be a positive effect drawing even more gamers to the hobby, either. If I'm wrong, adding the word might just cause the D&D-playing population to explode, but I don't think I'm off the mark, here. The fact that the gaming industry has grown by leaps & bounds in recent years leads me to believe that the people who decide how to market D&D at WotC/Hasbro know what they're doing. Since the hobby is still growing & attracting new gamers, I'd suggest that they have a pretty good handle on what attracts new blood & they aren't overlooking something as obvious as a single missing word on the cover of a few books. They're out to make money & lots of it, so I'm sure they've conducted more than a few meetings, focus groups, studies, & surveys that included the issue of whether or not changing the naming convention would bring in more gamers (& therefore, more money). It just so happens that I agree with them if they've indeed decided that it's a waste of text to add "Volume" on the covers as a result of what they've learned. |
| #22akodoAug 13, 2008 21:23:48 | I think some people here are insulting the average gamer's intelligence by implying that anyone in their right mind actually considers the PHBII a "replacement" to the original PHB, & that we need "Volume" added to the titles in order to clear that up for us. Looking back to 3.5, I don't seem to recall tossing out my "obsolete" PHB or scrapping my multi-classed fighter/wizard when I bought the PHBII & got to the duskblade class entry. Well, OK, I DID scrap the character, but I kept the book. It is a standard of the english language that Name 2 is a stand-alone, while Name Volume 2 is a 'suppliment' I think it is insulting to the average gamer's intelligence to feel the need to do away with the word 'Volume' in the title simply because 'it's too wordy' or 'it sounds like an encyclopedia' |
| #23TenzhiAug 14, 2008 1:32:27 | Naming them all "volumes" would imply that they're necessary to complete the set. This may or may not be a bad thing depending on one's POV. The best way to indicate that the further PHBs are supplemental while giving the title that artificial archaic feel, would be to call the first sequel PHB Appendix I, and number further sequels from there. |
| #24unfamiliarAug 14, 2008 8:33:24 | It is a standard of the english language that Name 2 is a stand-alone, while Name Volume 2 is a 'suppliment' Then by golly, I say we've all been insulted long enough, since the publishers have been at it for about thirty years now. It's time to take action! See you all at WotC's headquarters - I'll bring the tar & feathers. |
| #25elondirAug 14, 2008 8:42:53 | I disagree with that statement. Tomb Raider II does not in any way suggest that it is a replacement for Tomb Raider I. Neither does A Nightmare on Elm Street 4 suggest that it is a replacement for the first movie. The same goes for any other movie or video game sequel. Does Final Fantasy VII come across as a replacement for Final Fantasy VI? Why would it be any different with D&D books? D&D is a lot like an encyclopedia. Every edition has produced at minimum seven volumes (1e), regardless of the names of the individual volumes. I like the annual approach. We've all been used to Monster Manual II since the early 80s, and PHB2 and DMG2 were both in 3e. I figure they've got enough 3e rules subsystems, races, classes, spells, monsters, and items to fill seven or eight 4e PHB/DMG/MM sets. Once those are out, along with lots of new stuff, then they'll be ready for the 4e compendiums and 5e. |
| #26akodoAug 14, 2008 21:33:56 | I disagree with that statement. Tomb Raider II does not in any way suggest that it is a replacement for Tomb Raider I. Neither does A Nightmare on Elm Street 4 suggest that it is a replacement for the first movie. The same goes for any other movie or video game sequel. Does Final Fantasy VII come across as a replacement for Final Fantasy VI? Why would it be any different with D&D books? Okay, maybe not replacement, but definately a stand-alone product. There is NO need to have Nightmare on Elmstreet 1 for you to be able to understand Nightmare on Elmstreet 2. You will need to have PHB 1 to be able to understand PHB2 |
| #27elondirAug 15, 2008 8:00:24 | Okay, that's a good point. Perhaps "Appendix" or "Annual" should be in there like in the old Monstrous Compendium. But I'm guessing that the marketing people would think that makes it too "scholarly" which is BAD for business (even in science books, each equation in the book cuts the size of the target audience in half). Anyway, it's all just semantics. They could call it "Player's Handbook II" or "Dungeons and Dragons Player's Rules Supplement II: Applendix 1: Creatures and Occupations of the Denizens of 15th-Century Toril" or even "X-TREEM D&D PWNSOME SPLAT: Rulez & lewt 2 make U teh awesome" and it would still be the same rules and classes. |
| #28unfamiliarAug 15, 2008 10:03:37 | Okay, that's a good point. Perhaps "Appendix" or "Annual" should be in there like in the old Monstrous Compendium. This last one gets my vote, but only if my wizard gets an ICanHasCheezburger LOLcat as a familiar. |