The Gaming Den

Gold is the best color, though. Blue and red are pretty neutral. /nitpick

"Essentials" would actually be a pretty good name for the basic line if it weren't taken already. It's the essentials needed to play the game at all, and the meatier parts are sold separately. You could also market the basic version as being not easier but rather cheaper and faster, thus allowing people to tell themselves that they're buying the basic version because they're pragmatic even if the real reason is entirely different. Then you could call the advanced version "D&D Complete."

Being that Essentials is already taken for an entirely different product, I might go with Fundamental D&D or Elemental D&D (with a line in the intro explaining that "Elemental" means "reduced to its most fundamental and essential aspects, with all unnecessary bells and whistles removed"), and with either D&D Complete or Lago's Super D&D as the full version.

At that point, people will walk into the store who were never really into D&D and they will notice two things:

--There are a bunch of shiny new books with slick cover art and a big "3".
--Hey, didn't I hear D&D3 was supposed to be good or something?

Followed immediately by "haven't I been hearing that for, like, ten years? Is this a rerelease or something?"

Orion wrote:People will get that the game is *new* not because they know the publishing history of 4E but because of the newness itself. Seriously, when new D&D books with a radically different color scheme and art style turn up and game stores put up some displays to promote them, people will notice. At that point, people will walk into the store who were never really into D&D and they will notice two things:

--There are a bunch of shiny new books with slick cover art and a big "3".
--Hey, didn't I hear D&D3 was supposed to be good or something?

Let me make sure I understand your logic correctly. You're saying that if 4E had been called "Advanced D&D, Third Edition", it would have fooled even more dumb folks into buying it and it would still be a colossal success, notwithstanding any problems in the rules and marketing blunders by WotC?

Chamomile,

People love updated rereleases though, in my experience. If people who didn't play 3E think this is an update to a game they heard was good, that's fine with me.

Hogarth,

No. The name and the rest of the marketing get you your initial sales. The quality of the product get you your long term sales. One doesn't and can't substitute for the other.

Remember that Windows 95, 98, ME, XP and Vista came between Windows 3 and Windows 7 - and some of those had basic, home, home premium and Pro versions as well as 3 different Service Pack erratas issued.

It's probably a bad idea to fracture the fanbase of a TTRPG to that extent, but my point is that the numbers don't have to move in anything like the expected ordering if the product is functional and an improvement to prior versions.

Orion wrote: Hogarth,

No. The name and the rest of the marketing get you your initial sales. The quality of the product get you your long term sales. One doesn't and can't substitute for the other.

Okay, that sounds more reasonable.

I thought that 4E actually sold quite a few PHBs when it first came out and that the real death spiral didn't start until later.

Hmm...

D&D_V
(vee)

I don't care if they call it shiggles and gits. It just needs to be a good game.
Surely they can figure out something. . .

Ultimate Dungeons and Dragons

Today's Legends & Lore is truly painful to read. And makes me sad.

*stream of profanity*

Some brief reactions:

Mearls wrote:Instead, let’s imagine a world that works like this. The core classes—and let’s continue to use the fighter as an example—look a lot like the classes from Basic D&D or AD&D. Our fighter’s attacks improve in accuracy, he gains more attacks, and his hit points steadily increase. That’s the basics of a D&D fighter.

Now, let’s imagine that a group wants more tactical options for the fighter. They want to incorporate 4E-style maneuvers. With the addition of that sub-system, the fighter becomes more powerful.

Firstly, that's hiding the assumption that 2[W]+Push 1 is somehow an upgrade from 3 attacks per 2 rounds. You totally can add maneuvers that do not increase DPR, Defenses, resistance or healing. You know stuff like Disarm, Trip, or increased movement - and while those sorts of maneuvers would add more power in the abstract, they keep things on the RNG to the point that it's well within the ranges of the level / CR system used in 3rd and 4th ed. ( The level vs whatever HD and # appearing system of prior editions is only worth mentioning for the sake of mockery in a discussion of game balance. )

Alternately, if you're making up houserules to give fighters extra maneuvers, you could also make up houserules where fighters traded some of their scaling HP or extra attacks from specialization for those manuevers and the abstract amount of power stayed the same.

Mearls wrote:If the group wants to keep the power level balanced between classes, each other class also gains access to a rules module that makes it more powerful

That is assuming that the power level was balanced between classes to begin with. As that's something that no group of 3 D&D players of any edition has ever been able to agree on it's a pretty fucking big assumption to try to sneak in there Mikey.

MEARLS wrote: (wizards might get more spells, clerics gain access to domain abilities, rogues could get maneuvers like fighters or a trick or stunt system). The DM might pick out systems to add, or she might tell each player to choose a favorite optional rule for their characters. The characters have all gained, in the abstract, a similar amount of power. Let’s arbitrarily call that one unit of power.

Or you could call it "about +1 level due to houserules", or "add one, or two, or N additional same-level creature to encounters" - you know using the already existent power metrics for such things instead of making up new units that you don't bother to define.

Mearls wrote:The other type of modules serve to create a unique type of campaign. For instance, rules for sailing ships and commanding a crew are useful for a pirate campaign. They might even include a new type of ability that all characters can choose from. However, that rules module has a clear utility for a specific type of campaign; there’s an obvious use for a game inspired by The Odyssey or pirate movies. In contrast, a Dark Sun campaign or one that focuses on dungeon crawls doesn’t need such detailed rules.

SCREW YOU MEARLS!!!!

Seriously, this is the stupidest thing in your entire article. You have it totally backwards here. Dark Sun has fucking Sand Ships of pirates tooling around the desert in fantastic ways. and an area called the Sea of Silt. For a campaign using seagoing vessels I can jolly damn well just pull up Wikipedia's Entry on naval warfare on any of the four devices around my gaming table for the past 3 years - and I can then wing it based on the real history. But for a campaign in a setting using crazy fantasy tropes that have never existed (and don't match up neatly to a body of fiction my play group is familiar with) I actually NEED rules for how those crazy setting-specific conveyances work and what PCs can and can't do with them - because without such rules, the entire group is totally clueless.

****************


So, in conclusion, the only hope for Super Turbo Championship Edition Hyper Fighting Alpha EX Plus XX #Reload is that Mearls is better at managing than he is at design and writing.

Given the current state of his homepage and blog, I despair at such being the case. Nobody cares enough to update his wikipedia entry links to things that work. And that is not a sign of a popular or respected manager in a geek-heavy industry.

Funny thing, apparently Wizards ate his blog. At least according to your links.

Love the way the fighter is described as capable of contributing to an adventure, when we have 20 page threads that discuss the concept not working.

Plus, there is no way in hell they are going to balance it. And how the hell would character creation work anyway? There a standard level of power units? Mearls uses gestalt as an example, but we all know that either sucks or rocks based on the stat/class combo you've got going.

Back in 2008, "4th edition Dungeons & Dragons" was the right name to use. 3rd edition D&D was the most popular game that had ever existed and people were starting to get tired of it. They were really noticing the systemic problems. People were getting to high levels and finding that the game collapsed. People wanted a new edition, and they wanted it to address the problems of 3rd edition.

When they put out a little design blog that said 4th edition was going to ix the Christmas Tree Items situation, people cheered. And not just me. People in general had played the game long enough and understood at a visceral level that there were problems that needed fixing. And they were eager for that to happen.

Contrast to the 3.5 conversion, where Andy Collins came out and said that one of the goals of 3.5 was to give some power ups to the "tweener" classes lie the Druid. Now in 2003, I had been throwing Cleric Archer builds around for nearly three years and I was offended. But people in general were actually OK with it, because they didn't know any better. Flash forward 5 years of "CoDzilla" meme spam, and the player base understood at a very visceral level that Druids were over powered and needed a hair cut.

If 4e had stuck to the grind stone and given people what they actually wanted: a version of 3e with a Warblade instead of a Fighter, an overhauld magic item system, and a nerfed Wizard that was more like a Warlock, people would have converted in mass. As it was, a lot of people ran to 4e on the opening day hoping it was exactly that, but when it turned out to be a shit sandwich, 4e got really bad word of mouth and tanked.

The iron is no longer hot. If you came out and said "This is a new edition of D&D!" people would fucking ignore it. Like they did with Essentials. At this point you have to tell your fan base that you are looking backwards and making something that they can use to tell stories. You have to go AD&D3 if you want people to pic the book up and read it. 4e D&D was simply too terribad for people to trust a new edition marketed as "new" to be good enough to read.

-Fran

FrankTrollman wrote:-Fran

Oh, the jokes.

More on topic, I don't think there is any chance that the new edition will see short term results. Whatever they name/market it, it's not going to reunite the fanbase; people just do not trust the brand right now. If they put a '5' in the name, everyone will think they are flailing blindly in the dark. If they put a '4' in the name, nobody who has already left will pay any attention. If they put a '3' in the name, they are competing with pathfinder and their own old edition, AND pissing off the 4rries. If they put an 'A' in the name... I'm not sure most of the market will even understand the context of that, and the actual 'oldschoolers' will probably just scowl.

I don't think there is any marketing strategy they can pull that will produce short-term success. When you combine that with the fact that WOTC's current strategy is "axe people until we see something that works," whoever releases the next edition is going to be gone shortly after its release. Which means even if the first round of books are really, really awesome, the second round is going to be under a completely different designer and the edition is going to get schizophrenic really, really fast.

The next edition is pretty seriously fubar, even if the first set of corebooks are good, which they probably won't be.

If Hasbro/WotC just gave up the IP to someone else the new team could probably just go ahead and call it 5th Edition though. That would put the new guys at ground zero for trust, which is better than negative trust I suppose. That said, even if Hasbro did do that (which seems probable to me; the fact that they're not even trying to market it outside of the TT game is a big indicator) would anyone willing and able to pick up the IP be able to be trusted with it?

I still maintain that the 'best' thing to do if they're not going to release the new edition is to just let the property lie fallow for 18 months to 24 years while wounds heal and Pathfinder inevitably collapses from building ontop of a crumbling foundation. That time should be spent playtesting and editing the CRAP out of their next edition.

maybe Catalyst could pick it up
they did such a good job with Shadowrun

Lago PARANOIA wrote: I still maintain that the 'best' thing to do if they're not going to release the new edition is to just let the property lie fallow for 18 months to 24 years while wounds heal and Pathfinder inevitably collapses from building ontop of a crumbling foundation. That time should be spent playtesting and editing the CRAP out of their next edition.

I agree that a larger interval between editions would tend to minimize the "But I'm not done playing (N-1)th edition yet!" effect.

Chamomile wrote:Gold is the best color, though. Blue and red are pretty neutral. /nitpick

Actually, no. What color ribbon do you get for coming in first? And what color ribbon do you get for coming in second? At least, you used to when I was a kid. For all I know they give everybody blue ribbons these days.

talozin wrote:
Actually, no. What color ribbon do you get for coming in first? And what color ribbon do you get for coming in second? At least, you used to when I was a kid. For all I know they give everybody blue ribbons these days.

I dunno. I know that it was still blue ribbons for first when I was a kid, but ribbon-based awards also seems exclusively reserved for childish things. Adult competitions have medals and trophies, which are hardly ever blue.

The point of the "A" in AD&D 3 is not that newcomers or even the majority of the player base will understand the history of the A or why it is there. The point is that we want to use a 3, because people have good feelings about 3E D&D, but we need the new edition to have a distinct name so you can sort the books on your shelf/in the Amazon catalog. AD&D3 is distinct from D&D3 typographically but not memetically.

Orion wrote:The point of the "A" in AD&D 3 is not that newcomers or even the majority of the player base will understand the history of the A or why it is there. The point is that we want to use a 3, because people have good feelings about 3E D&D, but we need the new edition to have a distinct name so you can sort the books on your shelf/in the Amazon catalog. AD&D3 is distinct from D&D3 typographically but not memetically.

I don't know what to tell you. Do you honestly think that Essentials would have been more successful if it had been called AD&D 3, notwithstanding that it was a warmed-over hash of 4E concepts? Only a moron would believe that.

Chamomile wrote:

talozin wrote:
Actually, no. What color ribbon do you get for coming in first? And what color ribbon do you get for coming in second? At least, you used to when I was a kid. For all I know they give everybody blue ribbons these days.

I dunno. I know that it was still blue ribbons for first when I was a kid, but ribbon-based awards also seems exclusively reserved for childish things. Adult competitions have medals and trophies, which are hardly ever blue.

many agrarian-based and livestock-based competitions still use the ribbon system.

hogarth wrote:I don't know what to tell you. Do you honestly think that Essentials would have been more successful if it had been called AD&D 3, notwithstanding that it was a warmed-over hash of 4E concepts? Only a moron would believe that.

Good thing then that such a large percentage of the human race consists of morons.

hogarth wrote:

Orion wrote:The point of the "A" in AD&D 3 is not that newcomers or even the majority of the player base will understand the history of the A or why it is there. The point is that we want to use a 3, because people have good feelings about 3E D&D, but we need the new edition to have a distinct name so you can sort the books on your shelf/in the Amazon catalog. AD&D3 is distinct from D&D3 typographically but not memetically.

I don't know what to tell you. Do you honestly think that Essentials would have been more successful if it had been called AD&D 3, notwithstanding that it was a warmed-over hash of 4E concepts? Only a moron would believe that.

More people would have given it a shot if they had called it AD&D3 and marketed it towards Pathfinder players. It would have still been panned because it sucks, but it would have gotten more people to try it.

Marketing can only prop up a shitty product so far. But it does help.

-Username17

malak wrote:
Good thing then that such a large percentage of the human race consists of morons.

TTRPGs require both constant use of math and imagination in a world that's clogged with movies and video games requiring neither. While by no means moron-proof, it is at least more moron-resistant than most hobbies.

Chamomile wrote:TTRPGs require both constant use of math and imagination in a world that's clogged with movies and video games requiring neither. While by no means moron-proof, it is at least more moron-resistant than most hobbies.

I take it you've never visited the Paizo or WotC boards?

malak wrote:

Chamomile wrote:TTRPGs require both constant use of math and imagination in a world that's clogged with movies and video games requiring neither. While by no means moron-proof, it is at least more moron-resistant than most hobbies.

I take it you've never visited the Paizo or WotC boards?

I take it you've never visited the boards for any shooter game ever?

FrankTrollman wrote: More people would have given it a shot if they had called it AD&D3 and marketed it towards Pathfinder players. It would have still been panned because it sucks, but it would have gotten more people to try it.

I don't think most people want 3.75 either. There's just enough d20 versions going around right now (especially with Pathfinder), that I think people are sick of buying minor revisions to 3E.

3E has a fairly large fan base, but they're a fan base that has constantly been bled out of money for supposed fixes to 3E that have turned out as just a few house rules here and there, and nothing is fixed.

5E needs to take the best of 3E and 4E and combine them to make a better game. Right now I just don't see a 3E revised or 4E revised inspiring either fanbase.