Tatterdemalion's page

But the question still remains- Is D&D being effectively marketed to a younger customer base? And, as previous posters have pointed out, I'm not asking "is D&D being dumbed down for kids?" I'm really just curious about the effectiveness of their marketing efforts.

I think the product is priced beyond the reach of many consumers within the target market.

I think pre-4e versions benefited from a (sometimes misleading) sense that you could buy three books, at relatively little expense, and have enough to play. Few seem to believe this is still true.

Two more cents.

Well, I've been off the boards for a while, and I should know better than to come in with a criticism... but:

IMO it's a collection of old maps, new monsters, and less story than the original.

I got it for free, so I suppose I shouldn't expect much. If I reasonably take it to be an ad for their product line, it's not doing what it should -- it doesn't excite me about 4e products, nor does it offer much promise for future Greyhawk products :(

Your mileage may vary :)

WotC's ability to develop an innovative and fun rule system far outstrips Paizo's.

Actually, they didn't say that until an increasingly-vocal element criticized KotS and SoW for it's omissions. At that point WotC explained, for the first time, that such a move was deliberate.

It's my understanding that WotC has been saying this since before they announced 4e. A quick look back over the history of TSR shows that partitioning your market in this industry leads to financial disaster. A look back over the editorials on Wizards.com over the past two years shows instances when they said this...

I understand the argument against well-developed campaign worlds and linking the game to them. WotC was very specific in its statements in that regard. It's a decision that I regret them having to make, but I neither resent nor criticize it -- that's just one of those unpleasant business decisions.

They did not say that their products would stop including detailed NPC backstories, or detail about locations not necessarily tied to pre-planned skill challenges or tactical encounter -- not until they were forced to defend the content (or lack thereof) of Scales of War. This was a surprise to many, and criticized by 4e supporters and detractors alike.

I agree 200% about the value of Paizo's material, and it's value as inspiration. What deeply concerns me is that WotC doesn't see any value in providing similar material themselves -- in fact, I've yet to see compelling evidence that they think it's important at all.

The whole thing is very frustrating to me. I love certain parts of the rules (most especially the new magic system). But they've lost interest in elements that are important to me as a DM, and other elements that are important to my group as players (which has greater impact on which version we play).

It's just a lose-lose situation for me, so far. I hope that changes :(

WotC has evidently decided that encounter design philosophy is the preeminent focus of the game...

I'm not sure I agree with that statement. The general trend since 3e has been towards rules-heavy books over campaign settings and adventures...

Paizo provides inspiration, WotC saves me time...

It's a deliberate omission because WotC said they would be omitting that going forward. They're basically taking D&D back to basics and making the decision to write something once and make it useful to everyone rather than write something and have it only be useful to Dragonlance fans, for example. It's very much like the "good old days" of D&D except with a more streamlined rule system.

And I'm not suggesting they return to a format tied to specific campaigns. I simply want more detail for NPCs and settings to better facilitate flexibility and roleplaying -- rather than providing a bare framework of skill challenges and tactical encounters.

Maybe this makes DDI material useless to you and your group. That's fine. It sounds like you decided a while ago that it was going to be, which is also fine.

It does NOT sound like we decided that a while ago, because NO ONE outside of WotC was aware that DDI would exhibit this focus until about a month after SoW was released.

Please stop implying any sort of enthusiasm or rush on my part to reject 4e or DDI. I'm happy to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the game. I'm not happy to accuse one another of unfair bias.

The other big one is I'm a player in 4E. I'm not sure how much I want to pay attention to anything. One of the nice things about being a player (especially after DMing for many years) is that you don't have to work your ass off, you can just sit back and enjoy. The DM has all the power but he also has to do most of the work.

In fact, if I was a player (and didn't have to do campaign development stuff) I'd be pushing our group to give 4e more of a chance.

WotC's position seems a bit self-contradictory -- it assumes people want to do a lot of the work themselves, but producing a campaign presupposes that they need and/or want someone else to do the work.

I think you might be creating contradictions because you want there to be some.

I've bought the core rules, and I like a great deal that I see. I want the game to succeed. That doesn't compel me to ignore its shortcomings and omissions. Perhaps you just don't want to see those contradictions.

Regards.

And I find it passing strange that WotC's new products deliberately omit the elements that best define and distinguish the campaigns gamers have most admired and loved -- for 30 years.

I expect that verse 9,234,543 of this song will be the same as verse 1.

WotC has evidently decided that encounter design philosophy is the preeminent focus of the game -- in the rules, and in the campaigns released. This is not the lesson that the game's history has taught, important though it may be.

I won't accuse you of disregarding the question if you don't accuse me of caring about the question :)

But some might have their intricate homebrew campaign setting. Those are looking for a skeleton storyline and complling encouters to fill out the gaps. That is SoW.

For what it's worth (perhaps not much), my experience is that most DMs that put in the time and effort to create a campaign world also put in the time and effort to make dungeons, campaign plots, and encounters. That's my experience -- I don't know how many DMs are actually like that, nor do I think everyone should be.

WotC's position seems a bit self-contradictory -- it assumes people want to do a lot of the work themselves, but producing a campaign presupposes that they need and/or want someone else to do the work. And I find it passing strange that WotC's new products deliberately omit the elements that best define and distinguish the campaigns gamers have most admired and loved -- for 30 years.

But I think there is an argument that having a useful framework is a benefit, and that it isn't an inherently flawed goal to focus on greater portability and customizability without having to worry about details so intricate as to be almost immutable.

But rich, detailed backdrop and character development has been a defining hallmark of the game's best campaigns for over 30 years. Agreement on this point has been nearly universal. While the current model may have defensible points, history suggests it's the inferior choice. I don't see value in defending such a choice.

The claim that previous campaigns include "details so intricate as to be almost immutable" is a distortion. Few hold such an opinion, and the language discredits past campaigns better than it describes them.

Regards :)

...So, yeah, I *did* buy a subscription... I'm neither reading the materials nor using the tools.

My opinion is that the stuff WotC is putting out is pretty high quality -- if only we were playing 4e.

Interestingly, I don't think any of the new material generates useable ideas for previous versions -- no cool plots, setting, or characters to steal, and certainly adapting monsters and mechanics is difficult, at best. This is (IMO) a new and annoying phenomenon.

Is anyone else noticing this to be true... or untrue?

How did we not see this thread degenerating like this.

I really liked the primary chart which shows that with the exception of Nader and Kucinich all of the candidates were right wing to varying degrees. I especially liked how Mike Gravel was farther right than any other candidate except Newt Gingritch, Ron Paul, and Tom Tancredo.

They just made that up during the 2000 election. Prior to that, there was no talk of red states and blue states, we were just states. Granted, originally It was just a useful graphic trick to show how the states voted, but now that we have been using it for almost a decade it has just become one more box to try and squeeze us into like the ethnic, gender, and economic boxes. I will now step down from my soap box and yeild the floor to someone else.

One of the networks decided to switch it. Red was obviously associated with communism, so was arguably a negative association for the Democrats. The theory was that assigning red to the Republican party wouldn't be be construed as leftist/communist by anyone.

Regards :)

...Please let me enjoy my cheerios, urine free.

Why thank you, your exaltedness, for setting me straight...

...Furthermore, you need to tone down the sarcastic rhetoric. It's not needed here. You were corrected and refused to acknowledge it, instead turning back on those who corrected you and acting like you're somehow being persecuted. When you're corrected, the polite thing to do is to thank the person who corrected you for setting you straight.

No offense, Sebastian -- BTW, get rid of that sissy avatar! :P

But WotC made a really fun game, and it very much feels like D&D to play if you let it.

D&D is many things to many people. 4e fits the bill for many, and doesn't for many others. I'll concede that some of the people in the second group aren't giving it a chance, but many are.

Regards :)

Oh god, not the argument about the excluded "core" material again. I thought that horse died...

I'm not criticizing anyone -- I've cast animate dead a couple of times myself :/

Sons of Kyuss is similar, sounds like Kyuss is not an equal-opportunity recruiter and there are no females (or maybe women are immune to Kyuss worms?)

However, it is understood that the use of 'he' does not exclude women. Furthermore, it is the male pronoun which is being neutered, so maybe men have a gripe here. And finally, using 'he' does not diminish anyone, so I don't see it as a big deal at all.

To be fair, this is easy for an upper/middle-class white male like me to say :)

To get back to the topic, and answer a recent post -- I agree, lizardmen and mermaid are, from a gaming point of view, needlessly gender-specific (especially mermaid, which was never intended to refer to males).

...I was slightly to the left of Nelson Mandela but I was younger than and didn't have a mortgage to pay off.

Can you give an example of where the word has been used deceptively to assign a false etymology to the word history? The link I provided says that this word has been used to critique the subject 'history' not the word 'history' but that the anti-PC crowd have deceptively claimed that the feminists falsely understood the etymology of the word.

I had not seen your link before I posted my comment -- it was very informative.

My experience is limited to a relatively-few (less than 10) personal encounters. In each case, the word was used in such a way to disparage an assumed gender-bias in the word history -- this assumption was verified when I questioned the usage.

From your link:

All that being said, it is the “herstory”-bashers who are usually more in need of a history (and etymology) lesson. Ridiculing “herstory”-users as ignoramuses is in most cases pretty sexist itself.

First, I'll say I should never get into these discussions -- I'm just asking for trouble. I'll also warn readers that I find fault with political correctness as often as I approve of it.

However...

As for "herstory", etymologically it is not correct, I agree, but it is an interesting word to use as a stylistic point, to emphasize subjectivity of history.

IMO the word "herstory" is the single most offensive (and abusive) example of political correctness. Its use assigns a non-existent gender bias to the word "history." There are plenty of valid, honest criticisms to be made -- this practice is little more than lying.

I abhor attempts to establish moral high ground through the use of deceit.

A big pet peeve of mine. Regards all :)

Other way round with me. I happily play 4th but don't want to run it as DM. 3.5 is still my game of choice as DM.

I'm still not set either way as yet. I think I prefer DMing 4th Ed to 3.X and see a potential for longevity of campaigns...

4e permits stable play at high levels, simply because it keeps the power curve very shallow -- almost flat. There's no such thing as a 10d6 attack in 4e, for example.

Does anyone else find the Wotc website overly confusing.

Funny thing is, they responded to some online criticism -- specifically, they improved the quality of a troll pic that was on the page. The criticism, though, was thoughtful, specific, and comprehensive -- it went far beyond the quality of a single image, and addressed far more important points.

That seems to have been lost on WotC -- which is not a new story.

There are reasons colleges offer classes in Web Design nowadays -- WotC's site is one.

Will I get hopelessly confused?

IMO you should find 4e easy to learn and remember.

I agree. They don't have to lose money. They simply have to keep DDMs at an acceptable level of detail and quality, and they'll have my money. If they don't, they won't.

I'll take inferior minis over none any day -- especially when they are no longer randomized. I might get fewer for my money, but I'll get more useful ones.

I think the way you think. I agree with everything EXCEPT the part about hopping back in bed with them. I will not prostitute myself to wotc anymore. They have lost me forever. They are dead to me.

A little preparation on my part as the DM helps find at few other possible outcomes but you still never know what the PCs might try. This has always been a problem with modules so I'm not really blaming it on the delve format too much.

Which is part of the reason we spend little time in combat -- their plans tend to put monsters at severe disadvantage, sometimes finishing battles before they begin. They're like PC versions of Tucker's kobolds :)

And the craziness of their schemes makes play soooo much fun.

To be honest I find it difficult to read entries that seems to have generally no constructive content in responses and have a high number of small digs about the genre, '4E supplements as expensive band aids' 'rather glaring omissions' and other similar. Please try something constructive and on topic.

My 3.5 Maure Castle Game has less out and out combat and a lot more problem solving though it might have even less actual role play as 'getting to know each other' is not a big part of Maure Castle - its more a 'scream like a girl' type environment.

My group likes the thinking part of the game. They love outsmarting monsters, and they often force encounters to play out diffently from the way a module intends.

At the risk of taking us off-topic, that's the main reason we dislike the delve format -- my group is good at surprising the monsters, or luring them out of the room(s) they're in, or just mucking up the villains' well-laid plans. Delve format is (IMO) designed for set-piece combats -- which makes it wasted time and space for me.

So far one of the major complaints that has been following 4th ed is the limited at wills. This is especially prevalent when most of the PC's play humans and if are of the same class they only have 4 choices to choose 3 from. As you can imagine there is a lack of variation due to this. Has anyone out there come up with new At-Wills they'd like to share?

Most of us also think that, once you get a few levels, daily and encounter powers (which do offer more variety) will be used often enough that the limited at-wills will probably be less noticed.

And, of course, more books will improve the situation -- if you find that a suitable solution. My group tends to see 4e supplements as expensive Band-Aids, necessary because the first three books have some rather glaring omissions. We've bought few 3.5 supplements for our campaign (perhaps four or five between all of us), and don't want to feel compelled to change our spending habits.

A powerful geas?

Oh, wait. Material components are gone...

Customer relations is part of what a business enterprise does.

...But the conspiracy theories are getting a little old.

And complaining never gets old...

Using the old "well why can't i invent steam power?" question to invent cars and tanks. mostly because it makes me break the whole fantasy feel by saying because i said so. I still don't have a decent answeer to that.

Which, incidentally, will also explain why gunpowder won't successfully propel bullets at lethal velocities.

Using the old "well why can't i invent steam power?" question to invent cars and tanks. mostly because it makes me break the whole fantasy feel by saying because i said so. I still don't have a decent answeer to that.

Which, incidentally, will also explain why gunpowder won't successfully propel bullets at lethal velocities.

When infiltrating a birthday party, I will not disguise the halfling or gnome as a piñata.

We haven't found it to be lacking in anything...

Instead, I'm trying to compare my group's gaming style with that of others.

Matthew:

Obviously we're going to disagree on a lot of stuff. I think my opinions and statements are defensible positions, and I'm not alone in holding them. That doesn't mean I'm right, but it should discourage dismissing such claims out of hand.

I'm just voicing my opinions. I think point-by-point arguments intended to prove people right or wrong are unlikely to do anything beyond re-igniting flame wars.

One one point, though:

the three core books are no longer considered 'core,' and are not considered self-sufficient for play (by WotC's own admission)

Now that is just incorrect. The three core books are certainly considered core. So is everything else.

WotC is no doubt continuing to use the word to discourage the notion that certain books are less important than others, an idea which is inimical to their profits. If they stop using that word, my objection disappears. But so does any pretense that the first three books are sufficient to satisfy most players.

My claim that the first three books of 4e are not self-sufficient for play was just plain wrong. I meant to suggest something different, and my words were poorly chosen.

I don't mean to offend with any of this. These are just some of my reasons for no longer buying WotC products.

Regards again :)

For us, 4e has been great because combat is more tactically interesting and that's where we spend our time.

Unfortunately, my group no longer has any interest in switching; what 4e offers us doesn't make up for what it lacks. Personally, I'd kill to find a way to effectively integrate 4e's magic system into 3.5.

Please define 'Out Of Combat' , are you talking about walking around roleplaying, checking for traps, falling down traps or actual out of a situation, walking around town sort of thing?

The occasional Streetwise roll (as an example) wouldn't count, but rolling against things that immediately threaten damage (like traps) most certainly counts as combat, for my purposes.

My group, for instance, spends lots of time planning and interacting with NPCs (important or otherwise). They also spend lots of time straying from the plotline, and force me to roleplay NPCs for whom there are no prepared stats.

In fact, we've had sessions where they've never even gotten to the planned adventure.

...I'm not saying the price can't be questioned, just that it clearly is enough of a matter of debate that calling it a scam or "shameless exploitation" is rather absurd.

• the new magazines have eliminated virtually all costs beyond paying authors' fees, offer drastically-increased subscription levels, yet the price remains essentially unchanged (and as a side benefit, competitors have been denied their best advertising platform)
  
• prices on minis are increasing significantly (for good reasons, but that's not the point right now)
  
• the three core books are no longer considered 'core,' and are not considered self-sufficient for play (by WotC's own admission)
  
• as all this occurs, they show signs of pinching pennies to further increase profit -- the technical expertise to implement DDI was completely absent initially, and print quality issues have been raised regarding the rulebooks and print supplements (poor quality ink and paper, specifically)
  
• adding insult to injury, the OGL severely restricts the format of third-party publishers' supplements, hurting their quality and thus shifting profits back into the hands of WotC (this from a company that has a long history of praising the value of competition and the involvement of 3PPs)

All of these changes are arguably to the detriment of players -- all of them. While I certainly don't begrudge WotC the right to make money, presumably there's a point beyond which their schemes become brazen and excessive. I believe that point has been reached and passed. If not now, then at what point should I call their behavior shameless?

And for the record, I didn't suggest this is a scam -- that's a very different thing.

All this said, I think the product is good -- it's just not for me, or my group.

Regards :)

I'm curious -- how much of your gaming sessions are spent playing out combat?

50% would be a lot for us. Sometimes we've had nights where only a single combat occurred (and at times it would be none if I weren't careful as DM to make sure it happens).

Each round is very different for each characters. The priest is calling holy healing onto the others whilst calling aiding blessings as he attacks, the rogue is dodging around cutting at the legs of enemies to force them to where he wants them, The human fighters lack a bit of variation(3 out of 4 At-Wills) but are played very differently from each other(ones a brash barbarian type who goes into battle swinging, whilst the other is a mace and board fighter and more intelligent).

It's not a question of good or bad, just what style of play we prefer -- and whether or not 4e improves those specific aspects of play. We don't think it does.

Though for the record, we've come to really dislike the new paradigm on magic items. In our game, magic items are powerful items that can define a character's abilities -- not so with the new rules. 4e defines magic item powers very narrowly, and almost universally in terms relevant to combat.

My group, in contrast, loves items that are not defined primarily in terms of combat abilities. The decanter of endless water was a good example. As first glance, it seems rather pointless. But it's neat, and with a little imagination can offer all sorts of roleplaying opportunities. Neat magic items are a thing of the past.

I think the imaginative use of magic items is something WotC is trying to prevent -- it's potentially unbalancing. By their own admission, great pains were taken to limit the effect of magic items in play.

Just my two cents -- again, your mileage may (and likely will) vary :)

I've always wondered what makes a company replace a guy that's proven to deliver quality for the guy that doesn't when you know it will have to have an effect on the line, which hurts the entire company. Shortsightedness.

In hindsight, these decisions can seem profoundly stupid. What WotC did was replace an ailing product line with crappier products. How, exactly, did they think that would increase customer demand?

I'm not a big fan of dragonborns as PCs, or tieflings for that matter. They just don't come across as classical fantasy to me.

What do you think of the results? Do dragonborns make the game too ridiculous? Different? What did you like/dislike about half-orcs? Are the two really that different/similar?

But more fantastic than my group likes. And we love half-orcs,

To be fair, that's not exactly true. You can pay for a one month subscription for $7.95 (or something like that), which is the equivalent of buying one Dungeon and one Dragon magazine. If you like what you see there you can decide whether or not to subscribe for longer.

What really gets under my skin is the unmitigated greed of the new model. Electronic distribution almost guarantees higher subscription rates, virtually non-existent overhead (no printers, no warehouses, no shipping costs, no returned magazine copies) makes profit margins FAR higher, and yet they keep the cost at roughly pre-DDI levels. There comes a point where sound business crosses over into shameless exploitation -- IMO that's been done.

They alienate half the market, then make it difficult for us to decide we want to come back. I see little evidence they even want my business.

When all is said and done, my group wants to drop D&D right now, perhaps permanently. It makes me rather sad :(