The Gaming Den

I agree. 4e D&D may not be AS profitable as 3e was but I have yet to see anything that shows that it is NOT making a profit.

Even if it did, Hasbro has shown willingness to hold an IP, fire everbody in holding company and restock with other people.

I just don't see hasbro "giving up" entirely on D&D, and because of that its more likely that they will retool and launch another edition rather than pack up and call it quits.

In August, Wizards will start selling 8-card booster packs of character powers and items for D&D, allowing "players to play 'limited format' by purchasing a few boosters at a time." No word on rarities.

Smeelbo

(link to confirm this? can't find anything)

ScottS wrote:(link to confirm this? can't find anything)

I was tempted to link to here. Smeelbo is a game store manager.

In hard copy, it is on page 21 of Wizards of the Coast 2010 Product Catalog, July - December, which was sent to me to solicit for my fall and winter D&D orders.

Smeelbo

Creepy.

-Crissa

Smeelbo wrote:In hard copy, it is on page 21 of Wizards of the Coast 2010 Product Catalog, July - December, which was sent to me to solicit for my fall and winter D&D orders.

Smeelbo

Wait, I thought you had to be joking. There is no fucking way Wizards is selling booster packs of D&D, right?

he really has to be joking.

Holy shit that's terrible.

Bets on time to PDF scans being on the internet? I'm vacillating between "almost immediately" and "never because who the fuck cares?"

Terrible, yes. Surprising, not really. MtG has been a huge WotC (and now Hasbro) cash cow, whereas 4E DnD has largely failed on a scale that's hard to overstate. When you're some big corporate exec, you don't really get that the reason that a product failed was because it was bad, because frankly, you've never interacted with it and don't care in the first place. As a result, you basically kick instructions downstairs to make the approach match the thing that is making money - regardless of how unfitting or retarded it is.

Frankly, even 4rries should be disappointed with this. I hope they'll be disappointed with this, because honestly, anyone who fails to see how this is a terrible idea is dangerously retarded.

souran asked, quite fairly, I must say, whether 4E is a relative failure (which has some strong evidence) or an absolute failure.

I think some exploration on the veracity of the second kind of failure is worth exploring. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of information.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:souran asked, quite fairly, I must say, whether 4E is a relative failure (which has some strong evidence) or an absolute failure.

I think some exploration on the veracity of the second kind of failure is worth exploring. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of information.

The thing is, Lago, when it comes to 4E, everything is relative where its failure is concerned. It is relative to the previous edition of DnD, relative to other TTRPGs that aren't DnD, and even relative to other things you could have spent your time and money on instead of 4E. Therefore, whether the failure is absolute or not is a pretty meaningless statement in my mind - everything to do with 4E's failure is its inability to live up to not just the prior edition, but (almost) all the alternatives, too.

It's also a matter of opinion. The existence of the 4rry demographic (and Twilight fans, and FATAL fans, and any number of other 'why-the-hell-do-these-people-exist' demographics) indicates that some people will still enjoy things that many others think are awful in a non-ironic sense. Something that is an absolute failure would have to be un-enjoyable to everyone ever - and frankly, me being myself, I would rather play 4E than play WoW, or watch Twilight, for instance. So hence, I think calling it an absolute failure isn't really possible.

Well, we've said for a long time that D&D on cards would be neat. Heck, in 2ed they used to sell entire 3x5 boxes of gear and spells and whatnot. There's an RPG that uses cards to represent the rules and gear and advancement called Dragonstorm. It's kinda nice to have your spells and bonuses with pretty pictures.

However, you bet ten, I'll pay you one if they screw it up.

-Crissa

...Also, they'll be able to DMCA your ass on a single card, because I bet they'll write it as if a single card is a unit of their product, thereby meaning you can't replicate one-in-ten cards as a fair use sample.

Mister Sinister wrote:The existence of the 4rry demographic (and Twilight fans, and FATAL fans, and any number of other 'why-the-hell-do-these-people-exist' demographics) indicates that some people will still enjoy things that many others think are awful in a non-ironic sense.

Wait, there are actual fans of FATAL? I've seen Twilight fans, and even a few 4rries, but I've never met a fan of FATAL.

Crissa: I would assume that they're going to try to put out some kind of official online venue for this too, to make a dent in the demand for pirated cards. The question is whether anybody in their right mind would think WotC product is worth paying for at this point.

Mister Sinister wrote: The thing is, Lago, when it comes to 4E, everything is relative where its failure is concerned. It is relative to the previous edition of DnD, relative to other TTRPGs that aren't DnD, and even relative to other things you could have spent your time and money on instead of 4E. Therefore, whether the failure is absolute or not is a pretty meaningless statement in my mind - everything to do with 4E's failure is its inability to live up to not just the prior edition, but (almost) all the alternatives, too.

I meant financially. As in the amount of effort they spend creating the product doesn't give them a good term.

I meant this because souran pointed out that even if 4E isn't a runaway success Hasbro won't sell the IP unless it's a significant financial failure. That's what I'm interested in.

I looked at the catalog today, and I think they just are an expansion of the current ability cards they're selling.

-Crissa

Smeelbo wrote:In August, Wizards will start selling 8-card booster packs of character powers and items for D&D, allowing "players to play 'limited format' by purchasing a few boosters at a time." No word on rarities.

Smeelbo

This is complete bullshit you just made up. Either that, or you got a super-rare, super secret copy of the WotC Fall 2010 catalogue with hidden messages written in lemon juice.

Seriously, man, hit the page in your catalogue with a scanner and show us what's there. I'm actually inclined to believe you, precisely because of that "Athans friend" saying that M:tG is doing well when 4E isn't.

I have to back up Windjammer, that's the catalog I saw at the store. Hence thinking Smeebo is talking about the power cards?

-Crissa

While it's not yet on Wizards's web site, it was in the latest Wizards of the Coast printed catalog, as I quoted, on the page I said.

Say what you like, it's real, and my sales rep will be soliciting orders for it shortly. Although the release date is not given, based on the products on the nearby pages, I'd say October or November 2010.

Before you call me a liar, I suggest you contact your local game store's buyer, and ask to see that page of the latest Wizards catalog, i.e., the one they received with their latest order.

Smeelbo

Well, I'll suspend judgment until I see evidence myself (which I asked you to provide - you got a scanner?).

In the meantime, check out this:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rp ... owers.html

That thread gave me a whole other revelation, since I nominally don't give a flying fig about 4E. They gave psionics in 4E power points?! What is with D&D's obsession with making their psionics rules use power points in every edition, always in contradiction to the established resource management of everything else?

virgileso wrote:That thread gave me a whole other revelation, since I nominally don't give a flying fig about 4E. They gave psionics in 4E power points?! What is with D&D's obsession with making their psionics rules use power points in every edition, always in contradiction to the established resource management of everything else?

Psionics keep getting written by Bruce Cordell, who is a no-talent hack. Each version of the Psionics rules is non-functional, fiddly, and completely at-odds with whatever the fuck is going on in the rest of the edition because it keeps getting written by Bruce Cordell, and thus has more in common with the last version of Psionics than it does with the rest of the game.

That being said, it seems that they at least claim to have learned all the wrong lessons from 4th edition. But at least they basically came out and said that 4th edition was a bad idea.

By stating up front that different classes can be on different power schedules and that people would rather have something interesting than a reskin of the same powers that everyone else gets - they've pretty much repudiated everything that defines the 4th edition experience.

Unfortunately, I guess that means that they are abandoning the universal character level chart before it ever got used for its obvious function: rationalizing multiclassing. Indeed, by jettisoning the entire concept of ability parity (never fully realized in 4e, but at least given lip service), it seems like they are abandoning multiclassing again.

-Username17

Tradition.

As Windjammer's linked thread over at ENWorld implies, the Essentials line appears to be doing away with Dalies in lieu of upgradable encounter powers:

"Taking a cue from Player’s Handbook 3, we broke down the basic math of character classes in a similar manner. This time, though, we looked at eliminating daily powers and simplifying encounter powers. That approach would allow us to create a character class that is simpler to use while still offering a compelling array of choices during play."

The above is from the first look article over at Wizards (outside of DDI, no reg required to view) talking about the details of the Essentials line.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... e/20100706


So, yeah. Maybe a regression for martial classes closer to what they were in the Book of 9 Swords...?

At the very least, we're looking at 4.5 edition. Be interesting to see how it shakes out.

Edit: Continuing to read Mearl's comments in the thread over at ENworld, and his quotes from the Wizards forums - this could be construed as more of an Unearthed Arcana 4.0 with a bevy of optional rules and class features. I think the real determining factor is going to be what they do with DDi going forward. If all the new class-X material is written assuming Essentials classes, then we're at 4.5. If they do Essentials articles and normal class content, then UA. For now.

Ferret wrote: Edit: Continuing to read Mearl's comments in the thread over at ENworld, and his quotes from the Wizards forums - this could be construed as more of an Unearthed Arcana 4.0 with a bevy of optional rules and class features. I think the real determining factor is going to be what they do with DDi going forward. If all the new class-X material is written assuming Essentials classes, then we're at 4.5. If they do Essentials articles and normal class content, then UA. For now.

That is never going to work. D&D Essentials is also going to release new versions of old classes and they're no doubt going to be weaker than their old ones.

There is no way you're going to get, say, a 4E wizard to voluntarily give up their selection of powers for whatever cheap shit their Essentials Counterpart gets. So either the powers-that-be need to release massive amounts of D&D-Essentials exclusive power creep right out of the gate, they need to force everyone to upgrade to 4.5E, or they're going to have a massive failure on their heads.