# D&D is now in (exceedingly awesome) commercial form



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 5, 2010)

That's right - the Red Box has a commercial, and it's so hilariously cheesy that it wraps around and becomes one of the most awesome thing imaginable.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1j4MZerR7Q"]YouTube - Dungeons and Dragons TV Spot (Red Box)[/ame]


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 5, 2010)

Wow, Fiend Folio animated series!


----------



## OchreJelly (Oct 5, 2010)

That ad is so metal.  I approve!


----------



## IronWolf (Oct 5, 2010)

I had heard they were doing a commercial, not what I was expecting!


----------



## jonesy (Oct 5, 2010)

It's pretty cool, but..

How is that Red Box? I don't get it. Is that a real advertisement?

And who is it aimed at? It doesn't say anything about the product. If I didn't know better I would think it's a comicbook, or a videogame. Or a metal album.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Oct 5, 2010)

Wow. That is truly awesome. How did I not see this before?

As for not being very red box, I disagree. Everybody that this ad is aimed at will recognize it. Instantly.


----------



## OchreJelly (Oct 5, 2010)

Agreed.  If you're a long-lapsed player - Like a child of the eighties player, this ad is chocked with nostalgia factor.  Even if you didn't actually want to play, that same lapsed player may want to get this for his / her kid.  

I liken the strategy to the Wii.  Part of its massive success was attributed to adults having fond memories of playing Nintendo games as kids, and they in turn wanted to share that experience with their kids.


----------



## Jor-El (Oct 5, 2010)

CharlesRyan said:


> Wow. That is truly awesome. How did I not see this before?
> 
> As for not being very red box, I disagree. Everybody that this ad is aimed at will recognize it. Instantly.




I thought it was supposed to be aimed at NEW players?


----------



## Aeolius (Oct 5, 2010)

I have been playing D&D since 1979 and still fail to understand the connection some people place between D&D and Heavy Metal (music). Now, put a Conan soundtrack or some Loreena McKennitt in there, and I'm set.

As for the nostalgia factor... no flumph = epic fail


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 5, 2010)

Not just awesome. YE GODS AWESOME.


----------



## jonesy (Oct 5, 2010)

OchreJelly said:


> ...this ad is chocked with nostalgia factor....



Yes. For AD&D.



Jor-El said:


> I thought it was supposed to be aimed at NEW players?



That's exactly what I was thinking.

Other than the box itself briefly at the end, it doesn't actually show anything about the Red Box. At all. Which is why I was asking if this was real.


----------



## IronWolf (Oct 5, 2010)

Jor-El said:


> I thought it was supposed to be aimed at NEW players?




I think the Red Box is sort of dual purpose.  It is a starter set which can easily be picked up by new players, while tugging at the nostalgic heart strings of lapsed players that remember the old Red Box.  

As others have said, play that nostalgia card and it is likely to drive sales to people that might not start playing again themselves but buy it for their kids or nieces, nephews, neighborhood kid, etc.

I think it was a good move.


----------



## OchreJelly (Oct 5, 2010)

If you are a younger, new player I don't think you need to be familiar with the art to like the ad.  Likewise it doesn't need to say much about the game.  I mean how much can show about DND in a 30 second spot?  The impression-ad approach works better IMO.  

If I was a 12-year old kid and saw this ad with strange monsters, skeletons and big swords, I would be intrigued to find out more


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 5, 2010)

Jor-El said:


> I thought it was supposed to be aimed at NEW players?



No.  That advert is aimed at parents and uncles of potential new players.  It's pitched for an ex player to remember the fun he had, with the aid of rose tinted glasses, and buy the red box for the next generation for Christmas.


----------



## Wepwawet (Oct 5, 2010)

Gods! Is this for real?
Do WotC know we're in 2010?
This makes no sense nowadays. The aesthetics are awfully outdated and the music is so... 80s heavy metal 

I understand that to old gamers and original red box gamers this is something orgasmically awesome, but come on, using this as the ad for the current 4th edition of D&D, published in 2008 is just pointless.

I can't imagine any potential new player being attracted to... this.


EDIT: It does tickle my heart to see this old artforms, the exact same style I used to see when I started playing. It brings some strong memories. But I do live in 21st century. That wizard with the purple stars over his eyes in this time of realistic fantasy movies... Just no.


----------



## Sammael (Oct 5, 2010)

Horrible.


----------



## mudbunny (Oct 5, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> No.  That advert is aimed at parents and uncles of potential new players.




This is one of the responses that they are looking for:

"You know, Lisa says that her son spends a lot of time playing this Building War game with his friends. It has magic, skeletons and stuff. Maybe he will like this as well."

_Looks at price_

"$20??"

_Throws it in the cart._

Now which of these Disney Princesses does my daughter *not*have??"


----------



## Ulrick (Oct 5, 2010)

I think they are trying to attract older gamers who ditched 4th Ed. 

But its a terrible commercial. It's like something you'd see on late night TV, perhaps on local access. 

Am I really supposed to get excited from stuff from the old Fiend Folio? Is that really what's inside that Red Box? 

I guess there's only one way to find out without buying the Red Box. 

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page


----------



## Aeolius (Oct 5, 2010)

Ulrick said:


> I think they are trying to attract older gamers who ditched 4th Ed.




I didn't get that impression at all. Perhaps it's aimed at impulse-shopping older gamers who stopped playing D&D in the 1e days.


----------



## Nagol (Oct 5, 2010)

With an ad of that caliber...

I think it's time to play a different game system for a few years.


----------



## Cor_Malek (Oct 5, 2010)

Well whether it'll be a successful strategy, or not - it's clear that this ad is aimed at old-timers. Whether to just have them buy it as a present to a kid, or whether they count on people buying it out of sentiment and get them to swallow the hook for Essentials... We'll see. It has "come look at what we've done with 4e" all over it.

But Ye Gods, I really hope that's not _all_ they've got. That they'll release advertisements that will have some chance of attracting people that haven't played RPG's.

And does anyone know what's the background track? Absolutely Brütal.


----------



## steeldragons (Oct 5, 2010)

This is a commercial?....like...for television?...like, for television...today?
...um...seriously?

You're telling me someone (multiple people, no doubt) got PAID to create that? Concept? Production? "Effects" (if they could loosely even be called that in today's day and age)?

Really?!? 

Are we sure this isn't just some kid's class project that they just posted on Youtube?

...not to mention, I didn't realize they never even bothered to change the art on the new red box cover from cover art from the 80's?

Again, seriously?

I'm appalled. 

I think everyone needs to sit down, have a calming cup of whatever calms you, and rethink their definition of "exceedingly awesome."


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 5, 2010)

Nope. I love it. Really fun, definitely eye catching, and designed to bring back the old player. Win.


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 5, 2010)

Its been adapted...the source (and the long version!)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUOSsQlV2Qw&feature=related]YouTube - D&D World of Adventure[/ame]


----------



## jonesy (Oct 5, 2010)

TerraDave said:


> Its been adapted...the source (and the long version!)



Oh, it's by Dungeon Majesty. That explains the concept.

I'd still like to know if it's a real advert, or just a fan work.


----------



## Stormonu (Oct 5, 2010)

TerraDave said:


> Its been adapted...the source (and the long version!)
> 
> YouTube - D&D World of Adventure




I knew I'd seen it before (well, more like heard it - the music was REAL familiar) and was about to go hunt it down.  Wasn't that the winner of a contest WotC held a few years back where they had folks submit "What D&D means to you" videos?


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 5, 2010)

The you tube mentions a 2006 contest, though I didn't think it was that long ago.


----------



## Argyle King (Oct 5, 2010)

It seems like it would be a pretty cool intro into some sort of show or cartoon.  I like it a lot, but it seems like it should lead into something else.


----------



## IronWolf (Oct 5, 2010)

steeldragons said:


> This is a commercial?....like...for television?...like, for television...today?
> ...um...seriously?




I believe this was the hulu ad?  Not sure this one would or will be on television.  Some folks at rpg.net do report seeing it on hulu though as an ad.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 5, 2010)

TerraDave said:


> Its been adapted...the source (and the long version!)





That one is fun.  The other doesn't move me to buy the new box.  They both remind me that I have plenty of AD&D books and materials (and the ability to get more on eBay) if I want that experience again.  I only see people who already play current D&D suggesting this ad works to bring in lapsed players but I also see non-adopters of the current rules saying otherwise.  This marketing trend suggests that those who are part of the retro-gaming movement are large enough market share to warrant a television ad, and I don't think there have been many television ads over the years.  We'll see what comes of it.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Oct 5, 2010)

Not at all convinced that the ad will do anything at all for either lapsed gamers or for new players.  The art and the music may appeal to older D&D devotees, but not much else.

As for the comments about the target being parents or a relative to see the ad and buying it for their kids or nieces or nephews; I really hope that isn't WotC's marketing strategy.  They would be a heck of a lot better off marketing to the kids directly so they want to try the game than hope for kids to want to try something their parents or uncle played with they were kids.  

Of course I'm also not convinced this is a real ad from WotC anyway.  I suspect somebody edited that older video, attached a splash of the new red box to the end and tried to pass it off as a real ad from WotC.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Oct 5, 2010)

Jor-El said:


> I thought it was supposed to be aimed at NEW players?




Have you even seen the Red Box? It is ABSOLUTELY aimed at the nostalgia crowd--dads, uncles, and so on who have fallen away from D&D but still hold the memories dear in their hearts. Why else would the release a basic game in the EXACT SAME PACKAGING as was used in 1982?

If that's the strategy for your product, why wouldn't it be the strategy for your marketing as well?

Yes, the goal is to recruit new players. Through the vector of their dads and uncles. (And they may also bring back a few of those dads and uncles themselves; those guys have more time and money now that the kids are older and their careers are more settled.) The exact same strategy that brought Scalectrix back from the brink a few years ago.


----------



## Jor-El (Oct 5, 2010)

CharlesRyan said:


> Have you even seen the Red Box? It is ABSOLUTELY aimed at the nostalgia crowd--dads, uncles, and so on who have fallen away from D&D but still hold the memories dear in their hearts. Why else would the release a basic game in the EXACT SAME PACKAGING as was used in 1982?
> 
> If that's the strategy for your product, why wouldn't it be the strategy for your marketing as well?
> 
> Yes, the goal is to recruit new players. Through the vector of their dads and uncles. (And they may also bring back a few of those dads and uncles themselves; those guys have more time and money now that the kids are older and their careers are more settled.) The exact same strategy that brought Scalectrix back from the brink a few years ago.




But WoTC says its a beginner set for new players. 

I think its absolutely aimed at lapsed players, and for some reason, folks that already play seem to be buying it, even though they already know how to play. 

Just seems like if they really want to grow the game they need to stop "preaching to the choir" and actually make some attempt to bring in new blood.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 5, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> That's right - the Red Box has a commercial, and it's so hilariously cheesy that it wraps around and becomes one of the most awesome thing imaginable.



 That is solidly awesome.



TerraDave said:


> Its been adapted...the source (and the long version!)



 Wow, very interesting. I see all kinds of amateur mistakes in the original. They did a GREAT job cleaning that up, and distilling down the good parts.



CharlesRyan said:


> Have you even seen the Red Box? It is ABSOLUTELY aimed at the nostalgia crowd--dads, uncles, and so on who have fallen away from D&D but still hold the memories dear in their hearts. Why else would the release a basic game in the EXACT SAME PACKAGING as was used in 1982?
> 
> If that's the strategy for your product, why wouldn't it be the strategy for your marketing as well?
> 
> Yes, the goal is to recruit new players. Through the vector of their dads and uncles. (And they may also bring back a few of those dads and uncles themselves; those guys have more time and money now that the kids are older and their careers are more settled.) The exact same strategy that brought Scalectrix back from the brink a few years ago.



 "Remember kids, you can't call him Uncle Smelly when he's around."

But yeah, I totally agree that the Red Box is a nostalgia play. To have nostalgia-based marketing is just good sense.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Canor Morum (Oct 5, 2010)

I think the ad is awesome.  It is meant to be nostalgic as well as appealing to new players.  This is the whole dual purpose of the Red Box and Essentials.  Bring back old players, bring in new players.  How is this not obvious?

If you think the ad will not appeal to kids you don't know much about kids.  Retro is totally hip, think of all the 80's franchises that have been revived in the past few years. 

As a piece of marketing I think it works pretty well.  A kid would see this and go, "WTF was that!!??"  Then they would presumably go to the website and learn about D&D.

As far as heavy metal being connected to D&D, all the kids I played 2E with in high school were the stoner heavy metal types, not the typical nerds you might imagine.  Many intelligent, creative and socially awkward kids are drawn to heavy metal and it's culture.


----------



## Jor-El (Oct 5, 2010)

CharlesRyan said:


> Have you even seen the Red Box? It is ABSOLUTELY aimed at the nostalgia crowd--dads, uncles, and so on who have fallen away from D&D but still hold the memories dear in their hearts. Why else would the release a basic game in the EXACT SAME PACKAGING as was used in 1982?
> 
> If that's the strategy for your product, why wouldn't it be the strategy for your marketing as well?
> 
> Yes, the goal is to recruit new players. Through the vector of their dads and uncles. (And they may also bring back a few of those dads and uncles themselves; those guys have more time and money now that the kids are older and their careers are more settled.) The exact same strategy that brought Scalectrix back from the brink a few years ago.




But WoTC says its a beginner set for new players. 

I think its absolutely aimed at lapsed players, and for some reason, folks that already play seem to be buying it, even though they already know how to play. 

Just seems like if they really want to grow the game they need to stop "preaching to the choir" and actually make some attempt to bring in new blood.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 5, 2010)

steeldragons said:


> ...not to mention, I didn't realize they never even bothered to change the art on the new red box cover from cover art from the 80's?
> 
> Again, seriously?
> 
> I'm appalled.




Steeldragons, I think you're not getting where they are coming from on this.

They didn't "not bother to change" the cover.  They actually had a different new piece of art, and made a decision to go with the older artwork.  A real marketing decision, backed by real market research.

Tapping into the nostalgia of older editions is a major marketing move.  In the only marketing survey to have data leaked to the public, we learned that a huge number of players (an extraordinary number) are lapsed 1e players.  WOTC is targeting those people with this advertisement.

Recently I showed my brother-in-law my old collection of 1e stuff, and it BLEW HIS MIND.  He couldn't put the stuff down.  He poured over it for hours and hours.  He hadn't touched D&D since that era, and he was truly stunned and the number of fond memories just seeing those old books brought out in him.

That's the guy this ad goes after.  Thousands and thousands of those guys.  That's the guy the old-artwork cover goes after as well.  And it works.  My brother-in-law now has the new Red Box, and he's introducing it to his three kids.

Just take a moment and consider the possibility that the effect this has on some people is completely different from the effect it has on you.  And consider that getting those people re-interested in D&D, and bringing their kids into it, is a good thing for the hobby.


----------



## Cor_Malek (Oct 5, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> That's the guy this ad goes after.  Thousands and thousands of those guys.  That's the guy the old-artwork cover goes after as well.  And it works.  My brother-in-law now has the new Red Box, and he's introducing it to his three kids.(...)And consider that getting those people re-interested in D&D, and bringing their kids into it, is a good thing for the hobby.




Whoah. If this works as intended, that would create such a great generation of players. Not that the two generations we have going are bad, but both relied heavily on either peers or Older Friends being the DM, which supposedly (didn't really encounter this problem myself) sometimes led to situations where DM thought he was playing _against_ the group. These new players would get to know DM's who think primarily, or only - on everyone having lot's of fun. And them being experienced, not only RPG-wise, will set high standards to look for.

I already loved the idea of Encounters, this is another move that really brings the Wizards fanboy out of me.


----------



## Ainamacar (Oct 5, 2010)

Jor-El said:


> But WoTC says its a beginner set for new players.
> 
> I think its absolutely aimed at lapsed players, and for some reason, folks that already play seem to be buying it, even though they already know how to play.




Is it aimed at new players or lapsed ones?  The answer is "yes."

By cranking up the nostalgia factor to 11 it markets directly to lapsed players.  For them to buy the game for themselves (if they are so inclined) that is enough.  Emphasizing the part about new or beginning players (i.e. who the game is "intended for") encourages them and gives them tacit permission to introduce the game to their younger family members, etc.

I see it as show and tell, or a marginally subtle "but wait, there's more!". Show the lapsed players what they remember, and tell them it's not just for them.  Those aren't mixed messages, they are complementary ones.


----------



## steeldragons (Oct 5, 2010)

Mistwell, thanks for the attempted clarification.

I am shocked that that is considered a "real marketing decision based on real marketing research." Regardless of reusing some 20 year old cover art, it still looks like some 80's music video (exceptionally poor by today's standards but would be "really cool" for the time). 

As for what the "effect" nostaliga has on me being different from other people, I cannot say. I like nostalgia. I get nostalgic. I recognized all (or practically all) of the art used in the "video-turned-ad." Probably still have most of the source material floating around in an attic somewhere. "What's this with the Githyanki image from FF?" was my first thought when I saw the screen...and how I _was_ looking forward to something "extremely awesome." That just wasn't it.

Still, speaking as someone who could be counted among that "extraordinary number" of lapsed 1e players, seeing that display would neither entice me to buy it for myself nor to share with my kids (if I had any).

Sure, if it _does_ for other people then yes, objectively speaking, that would be "good for the hobby." But having a bit of marketing and advertising experience myself, as well as some graphics experience, THAT was not worth what WotC paid for it (to be banking on "nostalgia"), research or no. 

Just my humble opinion. If you enjoy it, enjoy it. But for me, not so much.
--SD


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Oct 5, 2010)

Sammael said:


> Horrible.












steeldragons said:


> Mistwell, thanks for the attempted clarification.
> 
> I am shocked that that is considered a "real marketing decision based on real marketing research." Regardless of reusing some 20 year old cover art, it still looks like some 80's music video (exceptionally poor by today's standards but would be "really cool" for the time).
> 
> ...




You saw it and talked about it. That's already pretty good in marketing.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 5, 2010)

The nostalgia is there to get in old players, the awesome factor to get in new players (And yes, it is awesome in a way that kids can understand).

Which is, you know, pretty much the purpose of Red Box and Essentials.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 5, 2010)

steeldragons said:


> Still, speaking as someone who could be counted among that "extraordinary number" of lapsed 1e players, seeing that display would neither entice me to buy it for myself nor to share with my kids (if I had any).




I think we're talking past each other.  When I said lapsed 1e players, I meant people who lapsed from all RPGs, and have not come back to RPGs since they left.  I don't think you're one of them (why would you be at this message board if you were).  

This ad is targeting people who played D&D roughly from 1975-1985 and then entirely left the hobby of RPGs.  That's also the era that is approximately when D&D peaked in terms of total number of players.  I think those people will be reminded of a fond memory that they had forgotten about until now.  And the trigger of that ad will be enough for some of them to want to buy it for themselves and their kids.

It's sort of like the ads for Star Wars before the re-release of the original trilogy into theaters.  People were anticipating it in droves because they had not seen it in the theaters for 30 years (not because of changes Lucas made to the films).  No changes needed to be made to the original Star Wars ads from the 70s to make people want to go see it again for the re-release.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 5, 2010)

Lets not forget that there is shared and false nostalgia - people get nostalgic for things they never actually experienced.

Certainly it would seem that this is made for 1e fans, people who enjoyed the first Fiend Folio, but I would counter that 2e players, or even players that came in with third edition _would still feel nostalgic_ for it, regardless of if they had or hadn't ever played with the original Fiend Folio.  Even people who _just_ came into D&D could look at that commercial and go "Yeah that's totally awesome" based purely on it being based in something "old school."

Old things in a hobby appeal to people in that hobby, no matter when they joined, if they did or didn't experience it, or even if they really ever like it in the first place.  Someone who plays Xbox 360 all the time will speak enthusiastically about Atari games despite never wanting to play them.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Oct 5, 2010)

Awesome.


----------



## smetzger (Oct 5, 2010)

steeldragons said:


> Mistwell, thanks for the attempted clarification.
> 
> I am shocked that that is considered a "real marketing decision based on real marketing research." Regardless of reusing some 20 year old cover art, it still looks like some 80's music video (exceptionally poor by today's standards but would be "really cool" for the time).




eh, I think this is their attempt at viral marketing.
I seriously doub't we'll se this add anywhere but youtube.

Who knows what they were thinking.

But it would be fun to go through the long version and figure out where each of the artwork's were snagged from.


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 5, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> Thousands and thousands of those guys.




No. Millions of those guys.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 5, 2010)

smetzger said:


> eh, I think this is their attempt at viral marketing.
> I seriously doub't we'll se this add anywhere but youtube.
> 
> Who knows what they were thinking.
> ...




Hulu commercial, actually, I think


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 5, 2010)

TerraDave said:


> No. Millions of those guys.



If not tens of hundred thousands! The numbers boggle my mind!

I started playing with D&D 3E and even I can feel a nostalgia for this old sh...tuff I've never played and have no intention of ever playing. (Unless diaglo invites me to a game during GenCon or something).


----------



## kiznit (Oct 5, 2010)

Brilliant! And very, very clever.

WotC has finally figured out how to sell the "feel" of starter D&D and is really capitalizing on its existing cultural space.

I strongly hope that this is the start of the pendulum swinging back.


----------



## rogueattorney (Oct 5, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> This ad is targeting people who played D&D roughly from 1975-1985 and then entirely left the hobby of RPGs.  That's also the era that is approximately when D&D peaked in terms of total number of players.  I think those people will be reminded of a fond memory that they had forgotten about until now.  And the trigger of that ad will be enough for some of them to want to buy it for themselves and their kids.




I think this is right.  Speaking as someone who lapsed as a customer of D&D in about 1994, but continued to be a rpg'er who played old D&D products and other rpg's, I had a hard time leaving the new box set in the store.  In the end, I did leave it in the store and bought the Dragon Age boxed set instead.  I knew that I would be dissatisfied with the D&D box because I knew about 4e and knew that it's not the type of D&D game I'm looking for.

Guys less dialed into the rpg scene aren't going to know these differences. The ad, the box, they look like they came straight from 1983.  It's the rpg equivalent of picking up Def Leppard's _Pyromania_ to rock out to while taking your kids to school.  

But, yet again, I wonder what the reaction of these hypothetical players will be to this old-school aesthetic/new-school design.  WotC might get them to buy the box, but will they get them to sign on as long-term customers employing a rule set that, in my opinion, bears little resemblance to the rule system these lapsed players are familiar with and are presumably nostalgic for?  WotC must be quite confident of the self-evident improvement of the rules.  I am less so.


----------



## Blastin (Oct 5, 2010)

as someone else mentioned.....
   since this little add has already sparked debate and conversation....I would say it's working...


----------



## Shemeska (Oct 5, 2010)

rogueattorney said:


> WotC might get them to buy the box, but will they get them to sign on as long-term customers employing a rule set that, in my opinion, bears little resemblance to the rule system these lapsed players are familiar with and are presumably nostalgic for?




This. Very much this. And not even the rules, but the flavor and fluff assumptions in 4e versus the iterations of AD&D 1-3e. There's a disconnect in my mind between marketing with AD&D images and its associated nostalgia, and the 4e game that it's being used to promote. It's like saying "Do you like Coke Classic? Haven't had a bottle of it in years? Then try Diet Coke with Lime and Splenda! It rocks! It rocks old school!".

Plus there's the whole thing of who exactly are the red box and essentials actually being marketed too? Every other thread seems to be switching as to it being entirely for new players or focused on lapsed D&D players (and didn't 3e try to market to them extensively already with a large amount of success with its 'back to the dungeon' thing 10 years ago?).


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 6, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> Not at all convinced that the ad will do anything at all for either lapsed gamers or for new players.  The art and the music may appeal to older D&D devotees, but not much else.
> 
> As for the comments about the target being parents or a relative to see the ad and buying it for their kids or nieces or nephews; I really hope that isn't WotC's marketing strategy.  They would be a heck of a lot better off marketing to the kids directly so they want to try the game than hope for kids to want to try something their parents or uncle played with they were kids.




It is not unusual for companies to develop multiple avenues for their marketing.  Look at Geico or McDonald's commercials, they have different ones that appeal to different demographics.  I wouldn't be suprised if D&D had different marketing strategies involving web videos, magazine ads or whatever to target parents, lapsed gamers, younger teens, MMO players, etc.



Thornir Alekeg said:


> Of course I'm also not convinced this is a real ad from WotC anyway.  I suspect somebody edited that older video, attached a splash of the new red box to the end and tried to pass it off as a real ad from WotC.




Definitely possible.  Reminds me a little of fake movie trailers that pop up on Youtube.


----------



## Edvamp (Oct 6, 2010)

Aeolius said:


> I have been playing D&D since 1979 and still fail to understand the connection some people place between D&D and Heavy Metal (music). Now, put a Conan soundtrack or some Loreena McKennitt in there, and I'm set.




It's not really that strange.  When you look at the time period D&D was coming into its own in the 70's and 80's a lot of metal music had very similar themes to D&D.  I just got finished reading The Elfish Gene by Mark Barrowcliffe and as a teenager right at that time he felt that heavy metal was pretty much D&D set to music.  Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Hawkwind (especially with the Michael Moorcock connection), Iron Maiden and, God help me, Manowar, had heavy fantasy themes easily mentally accessible by D&D players.

Yes, classical or orchestral music like the Conan soundtrack was appropriate as well, but metal had enough commercial success to make it easier for teenagers to be exposed to it.

Also, as someone else pointed out there is also a connection between D&D and heavy metal as the hobbies of social outcasts (either real or simply perceived).  I know a lot of D&D players into punk as well, most likely for the same reason, although punk doesn't generally share the same thematic elements to D&D the same way metal does.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Oct 6, 2010)

rogueattorney said:


> But, yet again, I wonder what the reaction of these hypothetical players will be to this old-school aesthetic/new-school design.  WotC might get them to buy the box, but will they get them to sign on as long-term customers employing a rule set that, in my opinion, bears little resemblance to the rule system these lapsed players are familiar with and are presumably nostalgic for?



I honestly doubt changes--even radical changes-- in the rules will be such a big deal.  If they're targeting people who last played 20 or 30 years ago, how much of the original rules would they remember anyway?

What might be more obviously different to such a "prodigal son" customer is how the structure & presentation of the new Red Box differs from the old one.  Some have maintained that it's not "complete" as a game in the same way the old Red Box was, or doesn't "play out" the same way, or otherwise produces a very different second "first D&D experience".

It will be interesting to see how the newness and the nostalgia complement each other for drawing in wayward D&Ders!


----------



## Aeolius (Oct 6, 2010)

I turned 15 in 1980, so I suppose I was in that same era. Back then I listened to my share of Zeppelin and Jimmy Buffett, but then the early 80s happened and the bulk of my listening switched to New Wave (Missing Persons, Men Without Hats, etc) and Electronic/New Age (Jean Michel Jarre, Cusco, Narada artists, etc). Sure, I had times when Foghat and Scorpions fit the bill, but the stuff that really powered me up seemed to be the stuff that put other folks to sleep. 

   As for the commercial, I only know it isn't marketed towards me.


----------



## rogueattorney (Oct 6, 2010)

the_orc_within said:


> I honestly doubt changes--even radical changes-- in the rules will be such a big deal.  If they're targeting people who last played 20 or 30 years ago, how much of the original rules would they remember anyway?
> 
> What might be more obviously different to such a "prodigal son" customer is how the structure & presentation of the new Red Box differs from the old one.  Some have maintained that it's not "complete" as a game in the same way the old Red Box was, or *doesn't "play out" the same way, or otherwise produces a very different second "first D&D experience".*
> 
> It will be interesting to see how the newness and the nostalgia complement each other for drawing in wayward D&Ders!




The bolded is precisely what I mean.  They're not going to remember the particulars of the rules, but they will remember that they never put out a battle board or used counters.  They will remember that combat didn't seem to take as long.  They will remember character construction as being simpler.  I am absolutely sure some will like the changes and others won't like the changes.  The question then becomes as you state it, how the nostalgia and newness compliment each other.  

I think WotC will be relatively successful in getting "old guys" to buy their new box.  I'm really curious to see whether or how that translates into a larger D&D community.


----------



## IronWolf (Oct 6, 2010)

Shemeska said:


> Plus there's the whole thing of who exactly are the red box and essentials actually being marketed too? Every other thread seems to be switching as to it being entirely for new players or focused on lapsed D&D players




I've seen this mentioned before, but the Red Box is being called "The Essential Dungeons & Dragons Starter" and "this boxed game contains everything needed to start playing the Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Roleplaying Game" (both quotes taken from the WotC Red Box page).  

It seems pretty clear cut that the box set is for people new to Dungeons and Dragons.  Keep in mind though, Dungeons and Dragons 4e.  So a starter set can work well for new players that have never played D&D *or* for people that haven't played since 1st or 2nd edition as both sets of people *will* be new to D&D 4e.

WotC has a product that can easily be marketed to either players that have never played D&D or to players that just haven't played since 1st or 2nd edition.


----------



## Oryan77 (Oct 6, 2010)

WotC is really going all out for that old-school nostalgia feeling in their new D&D commercials. I found this other new promotional ad and they have the 80's haircuts, costume design, and creepy narration down perfectly...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1wGlOwn1pM]YouTube - TSR Dungeons and Dragons game TV commercial[/ame]

Apparently they even want to remind us when D&D was owned by TSR. Good job Wizards! I feel like a kid again!


----------



## Ourph (Oct 6, 2010)

rogueattorney said:


> I think WotC will be relatively successful in getting "old guys" to buy their new box.  I'm really curious to see whether or how that translates into a larger D&D community.



I don't think the box is intended to bring lapsed 40-something gamers back to the fold. It is intended to induce lapsed 40-something gamers to buy it for their kids. The kids won't care whether the rules are the same as they were 30 years ago and the purpose is to get those kids to "graduate" to 4e in the same way that the original Red Box helped kids "graduate" to AD&D back in the day.


----------



## buddhafrog (Oct 6, 2010)

A lot of mixed replies.  Much of what I want to say has already been said - mostly that WOTC has said that the Red Box is meant for new players, but also particularly the children of former players.

Very few ads can work to all audiences.  Some obviously don't care for this ad.  I *LOVE* it so much I want to marry it.  It works for me and a lot of people here - probably many of the AD&D children of the 80's who now have children of our own.

Other Good Pts:

* It shouts rebellion
* the game can't visually compare with video games, so why should they try to make graphics that do?  Instead, the graphics are old school, and b/c of this stand out so much more
* this ad is a lot different than any ad I've ever seen - always a plus!
* Nothing is said.... just makes you use your imagination and curiosity (which is the strength of D&D, right?)
* at the end, it did say, "available at Target", which seems to fly in the face of the actual ad - you mean this thing is mass produced?


----------



## buddhafrog (Oct 6, 2010)

A lot of people are complaining: this is their plan??!!

Of course, if this is the only way they are marketing it is not enough.  There is no one-step marketing that would be enough.  I hope there will be other various marketing strategies - I hope we'll see threads on them here, both Red Box and Essentials.

I assume this will be an internet at on related websites.  I'd love to see it on TV in exactly the same student-created-type-quality b/c it stands out so much from the standard commercial that you mindlessly mute or change the channel.  I think people would really notice this, however, this would be a lot more costly and risky.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 6, 2010)

rogueattorney said:


> The bolded is precisely what I mean.  They're not going to remember the particulars of the rules, but they will remember that they never put out a battle board or used counters.  They will remember that combat didn't seem to take as long.  They will remember character construction as being simpler.  I am absolutely sure some will like the changes and others won't like the changes.  The question then becomes as you state it, how the nostalgia and newness compliment each other.
> 
> I think WotC will be relatively successful in getting "old guys" to buy their new box.  I'm really curious to see whether or how that translates into a larger D&D community.




I didn't have the original Red Box or any old AD&D / OD&D material. But from what I hear games at that time tended to describe their rules in not necessarily streamlined and fast-to-grasp style, using "Gygaxian prose" and what else. That people then didn't use counters or battle maps I would even doubt. Minis aren't that new to Roleplaying Games! 

I think someone that left RPGs for two decades will open the box and see a very mature product that is well-organized and designed and offers a lot of material for its price. He will see that RPGs have evolved - maybe just like he did. 
He might feel inspired himself to play this, or feel that this is the right thing for his children. The "Old" D&D didn't hurt him and it provided him a lot of fun, the "New" D&D might seem just the same but to "modern standards".


----------



## CharlesRyan (Oct 6, 2010)

Jor-El said:


> Just seems like if they really want to grow the game they need to stop "preaching to the choir" . . .




Several people have made this point well already, but I'm not afraid of redundancy. . . .

Thing is, they aren't preaching to the choir. You and I are the choir, and this ad isn't aimed at us (though we might get a kick out of it).

This ad is aimed at all those guys who left the choir 20 years ago. It says "Hey, remember how much fun the choir was? Why don't you come back, and bring your kids!"


----------



## CharlesRyan (Oct 6, 2010)

smetzger said:


> eh, I think this is their attempt at viral marketing.
> I seriously doub't we'll se this add anywhere but youtube.




The fact that it's tagged with Target says to me it's probably intended for broadcast, even if it's just Hulu. Such tags are usually the result of a commercial agreement with the retailer. It's possible Target would request tagging in a viral campaign, but those sorts of things are usually below the threshold of concern for a big-box retailer; they generally only care about mass market campaigns.

Just speculation, of course.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Oct 6, 2010)

rogueattorney said:


> WotC might get them to buy the box, but will they get them to sign on as long-term customers employing a rule set that, in my opinion, bears little resemblance to the rule system these lapsed players are familiar with and are presumably nostalgic for?  WotC must be quite confident of the self-evident improvement of the rules.




When 4E came out, my D&D group had two new players join. Both were middle-aged men who'd played D&D in the 80s but hadn't gamed since. They'd heard about 4E, and were interested in giving the hobby another spin. They were exactly the sort of folk this current campaign is aimed at (except neither had gaming-aged kids to bring along with them).

Neither one was the least bit put off by the changes in the game. I think this was because A) They expected change; every technology changes; B) Their nostalgia was focused on the experience of the game, not the rules; and C) Yes, they did find the rules improved--for all 4E's possible faults, it's not like the AD&D rules were exactly clear or intuitive.

They both really enjoyed the game, and they were both still members of the group two years later, when I moved away from the UK. As far as I know, they're still playing!


----------



## CharlesRyan (Oct 6, 2010)

BTW, I just flipped over to Geekdo. The first two threads to pop up under the RPGG forums are titled "Getting back into D&D after 25 years" and "RPGing for the first time in 13 years."

Anecdotal, of course, but it's one of a zillion such signs I've seen in the recent past that there's a huge surge of interest from lapsed players. WotC is either driving this wave, or trying to ride it. Either way, it's good marketing.


----------



## renau1g (Oct 6, 2010)

I think it's great because it is so different than anything out there (the key to any marketing success), and if they really showed what D&D looks like, which is a bunch of people sitting around a table, rolling dice around, with cheetos* and Mountain Dew*...would you really expect to be able to draw in new gamers . If they want super awesome-o graphics when they're killing orcs, WOW or DragonAge or any other VG can accomodate them much better than D&D. D&D's strength is the open-ness, can do anything type setting that can't be replicated by VG's, even open ones like Fallout 3. 

* substitute favorite snack/drink here.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 6, 2010)

This is perfect for not only the old school, crowd, but the new school crowd of potential gamer...

Take a look at things on adult swim sometime. This would blend in well with that stuff... It's just so weird and tripped out... I mean that Grell is thrashin dude like a guitar!


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 6, 2010)

buddhafrog said:


> * It shouts rebellion



*_snortchortlesnort_*

Whatever this ad may or may not do, shouting rebellion isn't one of them.


----------



## Wepwawet (Oct 6, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Whatever this ad may or may not do, shouting rebellion isn't one of them.




Yes it does! It shouts rebellion against the use of color and modern aesthetics


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 6, 2010)

Wepwawet said:


> Yes it does! It shouts rebellion against the use of color and modern aesthetics



*_snortchortlesnort_*

"You must spread some Experience Points around . . . "


----------



## billd91 (Oct 6, 2010)

I don't know about it as an ad. It's kind of crappy as an ad without any further context. It's a dynamite fan-made video through and, once you know that it is one, it becomes a somewhat better ad. Your expectations shift from "This is the best they could do?" to "Cool to incorporate fan projects". But before the fan film context, I was still sitting with "This is the best they could do?"


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 6, 2010)

I liked the commercial, but if I knew less about 4e and Essentials, I would have been very, very disappointed had it led me to buying the red box.  Great ad for TSR-D&D, though.

In fact, were I WotC, I would be somewhat concerned about customers complaining that the red box is intentionally designed to create confusion with a different product that they might have been familiar with.  It seems very misleading to me.

YMMV.


RC


----------



## kiznit (Oct 6, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I liked the commercial, but if I knew less about 4e and Essentials, I would have been very, very disappointed had it led me to buying the red box.  Great ad for TSR-D&D, though.
> 
> In fact, were I WotC, I would be somewhat concerned about customers complaining that the red box is intentionally designed to create confusion with a different product that they might have been familiar with.  It seems very misleading to me.
> 
> ...



Well, I suspect that very few people on this board would be able to replicate the emotional experience of "opening up the 4e Red Box after 20 years of not playing". 

Who knows, maybe approaching the new Starter Game from such a wide-eyed and baggageless perspective might lead to a surge of optimistic criticism of the system rather than the same old disappointed pessimism?

I'd certainly like to see that.


----------



## MrMyth (Oct 6, 2010)

Shemeska said:


> Plus there's the whole thing of who exactly are the red box and essentials actually being marketed too? Every other thread seems to be switching as to it being entirely for new players or focused on lapsed D&D players (and didn't 3e try to market to them extensively already with a large amount of success with its 'back to the dungeon' thing 10 years ago?).




I'm still confused by this idea that the product can only be aimed at one single audience. Has _anyone_ actually said it is "entirely for new players" or solely "focused on lapsed D&D players"?

I've said from the beginning that Essential's goals were threefold: 
1) Provide a slimmed down intro version of the new game that are easier for new players to quickly understand and play. 
2) Use classic elements and themes to appeal to lapsed gamers of earlier editions.
3) Provide new builds and content that existing 4E players can make use of. 

This commercial is aimed at the second group there, but that doesn't mean they aren't still hoping to draw in new gamers or sell the product to existing gamers. They just have other avenues of advertisement for that. (New gamers might encounter the Essentials advertising included with the Castle Ravenloft board game. Existing gamers have been offered previews and content via DDI and various gamer blogs and conventions.)


----------



## billd91 (Oct 6, 2010)

kiznit said:


> Who knows, maybe approaching the new Starter Game from such a wide-eyed and baggageless perspective might lead to a surge of optimistic criticism of the system rather than the same old disappointed pessimism?
> 
> I'd certainly like to see that.




I had an awesome experience opening up the Dragon Age boxed set. New game, starter set, very cool. I was very much taken back to the day I borrowed my friend's Holmes edition D&D box or the day I bought the little 3-book Traveller box.

4e's got an uphill climb to meet that. It had already been widely experienced *before* introducing the new red box. A large segment of the potential market has already formed its impressions of the root game. The surprise round, at least for them and me, has already been expended.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 6, 2010)

Ourph said:


> ...and the purpose is to get those kids to "graduate" to 4e in the same way that the original Red Box helped kids "graduate" to AD&D back in the day.




Which is problematic, because that wasn't what the BECMI Basic Set was designed to do back in the day: The BECMI Basic Set was a fully functional game; not a disposable, pay-to-preview advertising gimmick.

WotC talked a good game, but the new Starter Set isn't the spiritual inheritor of the Red Box. Instead, it's yet another product taking its inspiration from AD&D's First Quest: Try to get people to pay $20 or $30 for a demo version of the game that's designed to be stuck on the shelf and never looked at again once they buy the real version of the game. (And maybe if you load it up with enough bling, they won't notice that they just paid for advertising.)

Justin Alexander talked once about the lack of a gateway product for D&D. And he recently followed that up with a discussion of how the Starter Set perpetuates that track record of failure.

As for the ad? Stinks of failure. 

(1) There are ways to appeal to nostalgia which will also be accessible to people who don't share that nostalgia. This ad, AFAICT, is completely inaccessible to anyone who isn't a current or past D&D player.

(2) The ad is bafflingly incomplete. The D&D website currently has the full tagline of the advertising campaign: "ATTEND YE GODS, THE BOX IS BACK". The key element missing from the ad itself is "THE BOX IS BACK", which is kind of problematic since it's the only thing which makes the ad at all explicable.

(3) On a similar note, they seem to have gone out of their way to make it difficult for people to figure out what they're selling. (Without actually going so far as to make it mysterious enough to intrigue on a viral level.) They show the box at the end, but manage to obscure the title. And including an HTML address in a funky font doesn't make up for it.


----------



## Ourph (Oct 6, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Which is problematic, because that wasn't what the BECMI Basic Set was designed to do back in the day: The BECMI Basic Set was a fully functional game; not a disposable, pay-to-preview advertising gimmick.



Well, the fact that TSR decided to essentially sell two "Advanced" versions of the game (i.e. AD&D and a fully-expanded, 1st - 30th level "Basic Plus" game) doesn't change the fact that the purpose of the Red Box was to get players hooked so that they would buy more product. Ask anyone who worked for TSR back in the early 80s and I'm sure they will tell you the goal for the Red Box wasn't to make a one time sale to a customer who would never buy another TSR product again.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 6, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Which is problematic, because that wasn't what the BECMI Basic Set was designed to do back in the day: The BECMI Basic Set was a fully functional game; not a disposable, pay-to-preview advertising gimmick.




I learned D&D from the Blue Cover basic set.  And that book frequently made references to AD&D, and it was clearly written to get people to graduate into AD&D.  That was I think the point of calling one basic, and one advanced.  Only later did it really become it's own fully functional game.  And even then, the Basic book was always intended to get you to buy some other book...the Expert book being the next in line eventually.  And then there were modules, and dice, and miniatures, and magazines...it was always stuff intended to get you to buy other stuff.  That's the nature of it being an ongoing business venture.



> WotC talked a good game, but the new Starter Set isn't the spiritual inheritor of the Red Box. Instead, it's yet another product taking its inspiration from AD&D's First Quest: Try to get people to pay $20 or $30 for a demo version of the game that's designed to be stuck on the shelf and never looked at again once they buy the real version of the game. (And maybe if you load it up with enough bling, they won't notice that they just paid for advertising.)




You can play a lot of real games with the new Red Box.  It's a mischaracterization to call it purely advertising.



> Justin Alexander talked once about the lack of a gateway product for D&D. And he recently followed that up with a discussion of how the Starter Set perpetuates that track record of failure.




And I disagree with Justin, I think this will be a success, and I think he's wrong about some of those prior products.



> As for the ad? Stinks of failure.
> 
> (1) There are ways to appeal to nostalgia which will also be accessible to people who don't share that nostalgia. This ad, AFAICT, is completely inaccessible to anyone who isn't a current or past D&D player.




I disagree.  The images can be compelling without knowing their origin.  It's not like they are non-images.  They're quite evocative of a certain type of art and music and style that, as someone else pointed out, is frequently already popular right now elsewhere in places like Adult Swim.



> (2) The ad is bafflingly incomplete. The D&D website currently has the full tagline of the advertising campaign: "ATTEND YE GODS, THE BOX IS BACK". The key element missing from the ad itself is "THE BOX IS BACK", which is kind of problematic since it's the only thing which makes the ad at all explicable.




It's a release of D&D.  That's all it needs to communicate.  The Box is Back isn't necessary information to achieve the goal of getting people who like that kind of ad to buy that game.



> (3) On a similar note, they seem to have gone out of their way to make it difficult for people to figure out what they're selling. (Without actually going so far as to make it mysterious enough to intrigue on a viral level.) They show the box at the end, but manage to obscure the title. And including an HTML address in a funky font doesn't make up for it.




I can see the title just fine, and the URL font doesn't look difficult to read to me either.  It's a 30 second spot so they were not going to communicate what D&D really is with more than the images they already portrayed. 

I think the ad just isn't for you, but communicates well to the people it's directed at.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 6, 2010)

Who is Justin Alexander and why should I care about his hilariously wrong opinion?

Also the original Red Box was never intended to be a one shot sale that had the whole game.  It's always been a buyable demo to bring people into the game as a whole.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 6, 2010)

Ourph said:


> Well, the fact that TSR decided to essentially sell two "Advanced" versions of the game (i.e. AD&D and a fully-expanded, 1st - 30th level "Basic Plus" game) doesn't change the fact that the purpose of the Red Box was to get players hooked so that they would buy more product. Ask anyone who worked for TSR back in the early 80s and I'm sure they will tell you the goal for the Red Box wasn't to make a one time sale to a customer who would never buy another TSR product again.




Sure they wanted them to buy more product, so they sold them - adventures and an *expansion to* the line behind the Red Box. They weren't intended to *replace* the Red Box. They were intended to *extend* it. And that went all the way up to the Rules Cyclopedia which compiled them all, finally making the Red Box obsolete like the AD&D line had not.


----------



## Henry (Oct 6, 2010)

I get the impression that it's because of, not in spite of, a lot of posters' knowledge and experience with 4E that would cause them to be disappointed with what the new Red Box contains. I can't prove it, but that that's the impression I get.

Would someone REALLY be disappointed in the rules of a game they played 25 years ago not being exactly the same, especially when they still get to play meat shields, or wield big weapons and smash things, or sling spells and fry enemies like they used to? In fact, _more often_ than they used to, given the wizards' and clerics small spell load in the olden days?

It's not like they're going to say, _"what's this 'healing surge' crap? I used to have to stay camped in town for two weeks to heal! I'm outta here!"_ Chances are they're not going to be overly concerned with play style, nuances of game mechanics, or engaging in debates on verisimilitude after being away from the game for 25 years. Give 'em a couple months of play before they start doing that, first.  I guarantee two things:

1) A heck of a lot of us old timers used some form of spatial representation when they played D&D - enough to say that it wasn't just some minor splinter-thing. Given RPGs' wargaming roots, I'd say it was a plurality if not a majority playing with minis and square or hex-grids.

2)You can get an old-school dungeon crawling hack and slashing sensibility playing the red box stuff just like you could back in the original red box. The people who lapsed back then aren't itching to pick up the Red Box so they can do in-depth character exploration or roleplay; they're picking it up to roll dice and kill goblins. Some may be disappointed that you don't take two weeks to heal up 1 hit point per day, or that their wizard is only casting two spells a day, sure -- but I think the majority is going to care more about whacking hobgoblins with a two-handed sword while their magic-user, excuse me, wizard pops someone with a magic missile and the thief gets a backstab in.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 6, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Who is Justin Alexander and why should I care about his hilariously wrong opinion?



 He's a guy!
With a blog!

"_Watch your back!_", -- N


----------



## buddhafrog (Oct 6, 2010)

Again, lots of varying opinions.  I feel that most of the anger/disappointment for this ad falls in either one of three camps:

1) you love D&D and wish there were better outreach.  You are frustrated with the lack of new players and WOTC's lack of ability to get new players.  You feel that this ad falls far, far short of that goal.
I get this, but I think you are limiting your view.  WOTC has done a ton of work this year trying to make D&D more accessible/approachable.  The Red Box and the Essential Box Sets have been this year's primary focus - and they both meet that goal.  There has been increasing internet visibility to D&D through youtube games (see the recent PAX live play.  This ad is another.  None of these alone is enough, and together they are not necessarily "enough."  However, why are we assuming this is the only marketing WOTC will use?  It appears that this 30 SECONDS ad is very effective for some, and that alone is a possitive.​
2) you are not a fan of 4e and WOTC in general. I may be perceiving incorrectly, but some of the naysayers here seem particularly biased against 4e and whether referencing the Red Box will in turn turn people off when they buy it and realize it is different than the original Red Box.  WOTC seems pretty happy that this is different than the original.  I am choosing to play 4e b/c I think it is a much better game systems than the original.  I would hope new gamers would be introduced to D&D through 4e instead of the original AD&D b/c I think it is a matured, more complex version that is better to keep their attention.​
3) you just think the video sucks.
not much argument against someone's opinion, except to say that some others love the ad.  Would you prefer no ad?  If I saw a D&D ad that I didn't like, I think I'd still be glad that it was out there to attracts some new people into the game.  There is no one magic pill that will attract everyone.​


----------



## jbear (Oct 6, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I liked the commercial, but if I knew less about 4e and Essentials, I would have been very, very disappointed had it led me to buying the red box.  Great ad for TSR-D&D, though.
> 
> In fact, were I WotC, I would be somewhat concerned about customers complaining that the red box is intentionally designed to create confusion with a different product that they might have been familiar with.  It seems very misleading to me.
> 
> ...



Keep in mind it leads the to 4e ESSENTIALS. Different but old school flavoured 4e. So, not so misleading.


----------



## Ourph (Oct 6, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Sure they wanted them to buy more product, so they sold them - adventures and an *expansion to* the line behind the Red Box. They weren't intended to *replace* the Red Box. They were intended to *extend* it. And that went all the way up to the Rules Cyclopedia which compiled them all, finally making the Red Box obsolete like the AD&D line had not.



They also sold AD&D hardbacks at the same time, and history shows that the vast majority of AD&D players started out with some form of the Basic Box. I understand you're trying to draw some kind of distinction between 80's era TSR and 4e-era WotC, but I'm not seeing it. Both companies saw/see the Basic Box as the first in (hopefully) a long line of purchases from new customers.


----------



## rogueattorney (Oct 7, 2010)

buddhafrog said:


> 2) you are not a fan of 4e and WOTC in general. I may be perceiving incorrectly, but some of the naysayers here seem particularly biased against 4e and whether referencing the Red Box will in turn turn people off when they buy it and realize it is different than the original Red Box.  WOTC seems pretty happy that this is different than the original.  I am choosing to play 4e b/c I think it is a much better game systems than the original.  I would hope new gamers would be introduced to D&D through 4e instead of the original AD&D b/c I think it is a matured, more complex version that is better to keep their attention.​




I think I'm in this category.  And it's not that I particularly dislike 4e.  It's simply not the game for me.  I just find the strategy of selling a game that reminds people of the game they used to play instead of the old game itself to be an odd one.  The reason WotC is doing it is obviously because WotC thinks that their new product is quite a bit better than the old product.  And obviously 4e fans like you are going to agree with them.  

But the question is whether "the new-old guys" will find it to be a fun improvement or whether it will be too alien to them to scratch the nostalgia itch they were going for.  You've seen the evolution of the game over the past 25 years or perhaps have only experienced the game in its newer forms.  Someone who went into an rpg coma 25 years ago hasn't.  I'm curious about the reaction, negative, positive, otherwise.

And more than anything else, I'm curious to see to what extent the lapsed buyers become repeat customers.  If WotC just wanted to sell people a red box so the purchaser can scratch the nostalgia itch, they'd simply put out the old red box again.  It's clear they want to get the buyers of the new red box to become D&D customers for the new system.

This seems to me to be the first time TSR/WotC have acknowledged that there's a bunch of lapsed rpg'ers from the 80s who are potential customers and put something together to go after them.  I felt that the "Back to the Dungeon" campaign from 3e was more of an attempt to get people who were still rpg'ers who just weren't buying D&D products anymore to get back into D&D.  I feel like this effort could go a step beyond that towards those who aren't playing any rpg anymore, and for that reason am very curious about how it all works out.


----------



## buddhafrog (Oct 7, 2010)

rogueattorney said:


> But the question is whether "the new-old guys" will find it to be a fun improvement or whether it will be too alien to them to scratch the nostalgia itch they were going for.  You've seen the evolution of the game over the past 25 years or perhaps have only experienced the game in its newer forms.  Someone who went into an rpg coma 25 years ago hasn't.  I'm curious about the reaction, negative, positive, otherwise.
> 
> And more than anything else, I'm curious to see to what extent the lapsed buyers become repeat customers.  If WotC just wanted to sell people a red box so the purchaser can scratch the nostalgia itch, they'd simply put out the old red box again.  It's clear they want to get the buyers of the new red box to become D&D customers for the new system.




good post.

Interestingly, I'm the type of person you are talking about.  I played daily for a few years in the 80's (AD&D, not the Red Box), then I sort of just stopped as my DM brother moved out of the house and life changed.  I started playing again only last Christmas when I ordered a ton of minis for my 9 year old son to play with -- and it sort of hit me like a brick -- "why the heck don't I play D&D with him?"  It's one of the best decisions I've made in years for my own enjoyment, let alone my son's.  

I researched which version to play and decided upon 4e only b/c it was the newest and thus more likely to be the most accessible for my son.  I love my AD&D memories and experience.  But 4e is great for me, and in particular, the way we play it (more gritty, less healing surges, a few homebrews, etc).

I can't compare it to 2e, 3e, or 3.5.  But from jumping from AD&D to 4e, I was very, very happy.  I've matured and I like the added complexity and strategy compared to AD&D.  More so, I think it is the best game for my son b/c it might be a little more tangible, and the power system is one that he can grasp the concept of pretty easily.  And yes, since I started playing again, I've given more cash to WoTC than my wife would like to know.  

I listened to a WOTC podcast that clearly emphasized that the Red Box is for new players, but using the exact Red Box graphics was also specifically in hopes that old gamers would see it sitting on the shelf at Target, etc, and buy it for their children - bringing new gamers into D&D.  I think this commercial does a pretty good job with that one specific goal.


----------



## buddhafrog (Oct 7, 2010)

I *really* don't want my comments above to start edition warring.  I only meant to point out my personal experience going from AD&D directly to 4e - especially if that is what the intended target audience is for this commercial.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 7, 2010)

buddhafrog said:


> I *really* don't want my comments above to start edition warring.  I only meant to point out my personal experience going from AD&D directly to 4e - especially if that is what the intended target audience is for this commercial.



 Unfortunately, now that you've mentioned two different editions in a single sentence, you've doomed the entire thread.

"_Doom, doom, doom_", -- N


----------



## billd91 (Oct 7, 2010)

Ourph said:


> They also sold AD&D hardbacks at the same time, and history shows that the vast majority of AD&D players started out with some form of the Basic Box. I understand you're trying to draw some kind of distinction between 80's era TSR and 4e-era WotC, but I'm not seeing it. Both companies saw/see the Basic Box as the first in (hopefully) a long line of purchases from new customers.




No, I'm trying to explain a difference in the products, not the companies. Though maybe that's not a bad idea. How successful have WotC's intro versions of games been? There was Invasion of Theed for Star Wars and previous intro games for D&D. Did any of them make a splash like they probably wanted? I liked Invasion of Theed as an intro product... then found that once I had the full game book, I hardly used it. Since then, my thoughts on intro games have changed. I don't want to pay much money for something that's basically an ad for the full game. I'd pay a small amount for maybe a set of quick start rules to get a taste, then I haven't spent much before buying the main game obsoletes the introductory purchase.

Dragon Age, so far, seems to be what the original Red Box was. A game not meant to merely introduce and get the player to move on and leave it on the shelf, but to continue being played and added to.

I understand what you're saying about people moving from a basic boxed set to the AD&D line. I did the same. But that's to be expected once the player has encountered their gateway product. Other games may attract them away from the first one, particularly when they're so similar. But in the original Red Box's case, there was an alternative path to follow that kept the Red Box itself relevant and not gathering dust on the shelf. In other words, it wasn't just an advertisement for another set of products.


----------



## Lidgar (Oct 7, 2010)

Why does that ad make me want to read the Elric and Amber series while navigating the Halls of the Fire Giant King...ALL AT THE SAME TIME?


----------



## Ourph (Oct 7, 2010)

billd91 said:


> kept the Red Box itself relevant and not gathering dust on the shelf.



Unlike the BD&D/AD&D relationship, the rules in the Essentials Red Box are 100% compatible with the rules in the Essentials Compendium. Plus, you've got tokens, power cards and dice that will still be useful in an expanded game. The DM advice/rule book should also be useful in an expanded game. I think there's a lot more continuing utility in the Red Box than you are giving it credit for.


----------



## renau1g (Oct 7, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Unfortunately, now that you've mentioned two different editions in a single sentence, you've doomed the entire thread.
> 
> "_Doom, doom, doom_", -- N




you forgot he also mentioned edition warring! Now Cthulhu will appear...


----------



## Imperialus (Oct 7, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Who is Justin Alexander and why should I care about his hilariously wrong opinion?
> 
> Also the original Red Box was never intended to be a one shot sale that had the whole game.  It's always been a buyable demo to bring people into the game as a whole.




Which 'original' red box?

The Holmes and even Moldvay B/X's are both complete games, start to finish.  I've been playing Moldvay for over a year now, have read the book cover to cover on a few occasions and the only comment that says "go buy something else" is on page 61 where it plugs the upcoming expert set and companion supplement.  Of course the companion rules never came out, but that's beside the point.  Justin Alexander was pretty specific claiming that the 91 Mentzer redbox is the first one where the express purpose was to serve as an advertisement, although I'm not sure I agree with him on that.  I think the BECMI rules set is probably the most complete D&D set ever published I don't think it's fair to the basic sets to somehow call them incomplete.  Expandable yes, but not incomplete, and not an advertisement for AD&D either, though it often turned out that way.

Oh, and I think the ad is pretty awesome!


----------



## fanboy2000 (Oct 7, 2010)

billd91 said:


> 4e's got an uphill climb to meet that. It had already been widely experienced *before* introducing the new red box. A large segment of the potential market has already formed its impressions of the root game. The surprise round, at least for them and me, has already been expended.



I understand that 4e hasn't met your expectations, but I'm not sure why you mentioned how long 4e's been out prior to this set. The Red Box this product imitates came out in 1983, six years after the first printing of the Basic Set. Surly there were many, many people who in that six year time frame played Basic D&D and formed an opinion about the game. 4e's been out a third of that time.

Since I've already bought the new starter set, I'm not the target of the this commercial. It's hard for me to evaluate it because I'm so close to subject matter. I made the decision to buy it a few weeks ago, to compliment the fact that I'm running encounters. I like it. I'm glad it comes with character creation rules, but I wish it had a more streamlined character creation process in addition to the choose-your-own-adventure included. But oh well.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 7, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Unfortunately, now that you've mentioned two different editions in a single sentence, you've doomed the entire thread.
> 
> "_Doom, doom, doom_", -- N



Mearls ruins everything.
buddhafrog dooms everything. 

We _can't get no relief_.


----------



## vagabundo (Oct 7, 2010)

Oh I like the ad. Also doesn't preclude other TV ads reaching out to different groups of people.



			
				ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Who is Justin Alexander and why should I care about his hilariously wrong opinion?




Just do a damn google search! Sheesh...

Welcome ~ Justin Alexander Bridal Worldwide: Justin Alexander Bridal, Bridal Gowns, Wedding Gowns


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 7, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Who is Justin Alexander and why should I care about his hilariously wrong opinion?



  He's a guy on the internet. So are you.  I didn't say, "LISTEN TO THE VOICE OF GOD TELL YOU WHAT TO THINK."  I said, "Here's a guy saying some  that I think makes sense."  You guys need to learn some perspective. 



Ourph said:


> They also sold AD&D hardbacks at the same time, and history shows that the vast majority of AD&D players started out with some form of the Basic Box. I understand you're trying to draw some kind of distinction between 80's era TSR and 4e-era WotC, but I'm not seeing it.




I'm not sure how you can fail to see the distinction. It's fairly clear-cut: The BECMI Basic Set was designed as part of an extendable game system in which the Basic Set would never be discarded.   Yes, there was also AD&D. There was also Boot Hill and Gamma World and a bunch of other TSR games. But that's different than a pay-to-preview product.

And, yes, there was the 1977 Holmes Basic Set. (Although that product included full rules for character creation.) And the post-1991 TSR Basic Sets. And TSR's AD&D First Quest boxed set. And the 3E Basic Games. Nobody's saying the pay-to-preview product originated with WotC or 4E. There's a long history of them.  

And it's a long history of failure.  

The BECMI Basic Set was massively successful compared to other products of its kind. So successful that, 20 years later, WotC is trying to recapture its success in a very literal way. Why is that? What was different about it? What separated it from the other dozen basic sets and basic games that TSR and WotC have released over the years?  

It wasn't pay-to-preview.  

Maybe you're right and that distinction is irrelevant. It's certainly possible. But literally everything else about that boxed set has been replicated time and time again... and failed time and time again. So maybe at some point, WotC will think about trying the one thing about that boxed set that they _haven't_ done in 20 years.  

Also: Yes. There are people who were introduced to the game through pay-to-preview products. That doesn't actually negate the larger question of comparative effectiveness. There are plenty of people who played DragonDice. That doesn't mean it was a huge hit.  I literally can't think of another game in the entire universe that works like this: "Buy this version of the game that's been designed for obsolescence after a handful of plays (at most) and is packed full of advertisements for the real version of the game. And once you buy the real game, this product is designed to be stuck in the closet."  

Computer games have demos... but they generally don't charge you for them.  

Board games have expansion packs... but when I buy _Arkham Horror: Kingsport_ I'm not expected to throw away my copy of _Arkham Horror_. The expansion is specifically designed to increase the utility of the base product.


----------



## Nymrohd (Oct 7, 2010)

I found it tacky and certainly a put-off. I find the Essentials campaign itself tacky as well. Attend Ye Gods? I thought the marketing department of MtG was worse (Infinite ways to say here I rule? Are you frickin kidding me?) but I guess they either share personel or are competing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 7, 2010)

jbear said:


> Keep in mind it leads the to 4e ESSENTIALS. Different but old school flavoured 4e. So, not so misleading.




I was initially intrigued by the Essentials line.  Not so interested after examining it closer.  I would still be disappointed.

Similarly, I may not play Monopoly often, but if I picked up a box advertising Monopoly, getting as great a divergence between what I remember Monopoly being and what is presented, I would also have a sense of disappointment.  There would be a real WTF moment.  If I ended up liking the new product, great.  But I would still feel that I had "been had".


RC


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Oct 7, 2010)

Okay- G-E-N-I-U-S IDEA:

Up until now, they have been WANTING to sell these books for 30$ each, and since you need at minmum 3 books thats 90 bucks. Hard to get people to plop down that much cash on something they have NEVER done/[layed before. Hence why they sell a lil demo/starter and let people decide if they want to make the big commitment. BUT WHAT IF...they did it THIS way:

The ideal "RedBox" could contain quickstart rules and the like, and a sample adventure for lvls 1-2 BUT the materials within a "mini" monster manual, DMG, and PHB contain enough class progression charts/items/spells/etc to carry a character all the way to 5th.

It contains materials such that if players wanted they can make their OWN characters and their OWN choices from scratch. Likewise, the DM after running the companion adventure (lvl 1->2) would be encouraged to go off and CREATE his own stuff -the DMG advises you how, and warns you of pitfalls but never tells you what to do. You play up the fact that they are the Dungeon MASTER. Sure, your first time doing this may be messy, but thats how life is. Emphasize CREATIVITY, and that ANYTHING could happen. Along the way over the next 3 lvls; you could advertise MODULES (each sold seperately) for lvls 3-5; exactly what the newbie group needs. You dont have to run modules, but they can make things easier and contain cool stuff. 

BUT WAIT! 

While you're in the FLG what do you see? Why, look its NOT random/bullcrap D&D Mini's where you dont KNOW what you're getting -but a COMPANION Mini Pack (sold seperately) that go with EACH module (sold seperately). WOW thats hella better than the wimpy pogs that came with the First Box -but they're seperate you DONT have to buy them to play the module (but why wouldnt you?), they exist to make the module and your Home Campaign BETTER. Now, THE KEY difference is that they are NOT RANDOM and thus always USEABLE and WORTH buying. And not ONLY that but if you ACTUALLY want to play the miniatures skirmish game, you know EXACTLY what you have to buy and in what # to get what you want for your army JUST like Warhammer 40K or other games. Each one contains a squad of some sort, a cool feature controller/leader and some minions or people under him.

Now -the newbie group is up to lvl 5th; they dont know how to progress their characters any further, and they've explored many or most of the options in the lvl 1-5 monster manual. Now what?

A NEW BOX! Lvl 5-10th; Companion Adventure (5-7) more modules for those lvls; and minis packs (sold seperately) for those modules and for use with the minatures game, etc, etc. Four Boxes would spread out the CORE material for lvls 1-20. As it has been in the past (If I understand) today, the MINIMUM 3 core books have full progression 1-20 and a full range of CRs. IF YOU SPREAD IT OUT....you should make it cheaper than $90 Bucks just to actually get started, AND you make it necessary to buy each box for core rules. FURTHERMORE -you may not want to start a new game at lvl 1 (I dont like starting at lvl 1 myself) BUT if you do-you will need that First Box. That First Box WAS a pre-view, but it was also part of what compromises a necessary Core set.

After the 4 Boxes are released, all future releases are HORIZONTAL expansion rather than vertical, expanding upon each of the 4 Core Boxes content. This model I think, emphasizes the CREATIVE aspects of playing the game, AND gets people used to the IDEA of buying more, and more material rather than expecting to make just ONE purchase. 
----

Now, my thoughts on the commercial? LOVED it. I myself only started playing late in 3.5, but the I know about D & D's history, and the fact that it has history says something to me. I dont think its old or dated, but its ENDURED for a reason and will continue to do so. The 'oldschool' ness of it stirred some good feelings in me. 

As for the 'Attend ye gods,' I swear thats a line out of the illiad...

EDIT: IT IS!

"and all the gods gave ear " *Attend, ye gods* and ye goddesses ; let none of female deities, and none of male, presume to cancel my word, but all of you give consent thereto that I may bring these doings to an end" -Zeus; The Illiad translated into English Prose (1891; John Purves)


----------



## Stoat (Oct 7, 2010)

The advertisement is badass.  It is obviously aimed at the same demographic as Metalocalypse and similar Adult Swim cartoons -- men in their mid-20's to mid-30's who probably don't have much first hand experience with the D&D of the mid-1980's.  

Also, the advertisement is badass.


----------



## filthgrinder (Oct 7, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> It wasn't pay-to-preview.
> 
> Computer games have demos... but they generally don't charge you for them.




If only WotC put out quick start rules and an entire adventure for free on their website. 

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Try DnD
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/QuickStartRules.pdf
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/H1.pdf
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Khybers_Harvest.zip

Oh, hmm. I guess they did.


----------



## MrMyth (Oct 7, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Justin Alexander talked once about the lack of a gateway product for D&D. And he recently followed that up with a discussion of how the Starter Set perpetuates that track record of failure.




What I find amusing in those links is that, in the first, he says the 4 issues are that: 
-There hasn't been a game packaged to look like a game to the average customer;
-There hasn't been a version packaged to sell through mainstream stores;
-The entry cost for the game has been too high;
-The investment time of reading the books is too much. 

And he mentions that the solo play adventure is a super awesome thing. 

So, along comes the Red Box, which absolutely addresses the first two issues, and has a solo play adventure.... none of which he mentions at all in his follow-up post. So I'm going to say that 'reader bias' is informing his opinion a lot more than any accurate review of the facts. 

I do understand his points about it not containing a full game - but it does contain enough to get a new group playing, for a couple levels, at a very cheap entry point. That seems a good goal for a _starter_ set. 

A $20 product that would actually completely replace the rest of the game? It's a nice thought, but I'm not sure that's a product that WotC _wants_ to produce. 

Honestly, for me, I do wish the Starter Set had a few more things: Maybe a small section that details character creation without _needing_ to go through the solo adventure, along with some more info for the DM on creating their own adventures. I think there is room for it to have a bit more replay value while still leaving the appeal of expanding to the rest of the game. 

But dismissing it as pure fail? Yeah, not so much.


----------



## Ourph (Oct 7, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> The BECMI Basic Set was massively successful compared to other products of its kind. So successful that, 20 years later, WotC is trying to recapture its success in a very literal way. Why is that? What was different about it? What separated it from the other dozen basic sets and basic games that TSR and WotC have released over the years?
> 
> It wasn't pay-to-preview.



Let's be clear, the "B" in BECMI was massively successful... at driving people to the AD&D hardbacks. The "ECMI" section of the line was never even close to AD&D in terms of popularity, despite the fact that most AD&D players in the 80s started with some iteration of the Basic game. Let's also be clear that there are multiple differences between the original Red Box and it's later iterations, other than the expandable nature of the BECMI series. No other Basic/Starter D&D set since the Mentzer box has 1) been sold in mainstream retail outlets and toystores like Wal-Mart, Target, Sears and Toys'R'Us; and 2) been in release at a time when D&D was already massively popular (i.e. numerous news stories, TV commercials, school gaming clubs, Saturday morning cartoon, etc.). To claim that the expandable nature of the game past the contents of the Basic Box was at the root of the Basic game's success is, IMO, ignoring a large body of evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 7, 2010)

Ourph said:


> Let's be clear, the "B" in BECMI was massively successful... at driving people to the AD&D hardbacks.





That's the sense I always had of that.  I wonder if a poll here in general regarding whether someone came at AD&D 1E from "the B" would find that to be true, as well.  Or would it find that most that started with "the B" continued with the BECMI?  What would be the best way to word it?


Anyway, this thread continues to suggest to me that people who already play the current edition feel the red box will bring in new players, sometimes via older players, and people who don't play or like the current edition seem to be saying they aren't interested.  We'll have a good sense of the truth of it after it has been out for three months.  People should ask the managers of local Target stores how they are selling, as well as the larger gamestores, after they have been on the shelf for a while.  If we get a few dozen reports back that are all one way or the other, we'll probably have a good sense of it.


----------



## Zil (Oct 7, 2010)

Mark CMG said:


> That's the sense I always had of that.  I wonder if a poll here in general regarding whether someone came at AD&D 1E from "the B" would find that to be true, as well.  Or would it find that most that started with "the B" continued with the BECMI?  What would be the best way to word it?




Our group started with AD&D back in 79-80ish and then dabbled with BECMI mainly for the modules which weren't that difficult to convert. 

Much later on (93-94) I ran a game using the D&D Rules Cyclopedia combined with the 2E monstrous manual, 2E Might Fortress rules, and the 2E psionics book which is probably the only time we actually played using any of the BECMI rules.

So.. all the red box stuff doesn't really mean all that much to me from a nostalgia perspective.  However, all the fiend folio art work in the commercial certainly does, but it also comes across as being rather cornball.


----------



## Cor_Malek (Oct 7, 2010)

Keefe the Thief said:


> You saw it and talked about it. That's already pretty good in marketing.




QFT, as it was posted at 3rd, and the thread already reached 8 pages. Meanwhile, some of the users actively engaged in discussion as pro-ad. And nothing reinforces opinion as restating it. Sure, some in similar way entrenched as anti-Essentials, but all effective strategies repel some customers.

I still can't find source of the track from that video, and I'm more and more sure I've heard it before.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 7, 2010)

Ourph said:


> Let's also be clear that there are multiple differences between the original Red Box and it's later iterations, other than the expandable nature of the BECMI series. No other Basic/Starter D&D set since the Mentzer box has 1) been sold in mainstream retail outlets and toystores like Wal-Mart, Target, Sears and Toys'R'Us;




This is not actually true. The '91 Basic Set, at the very least, was still getting pushed into mainstream retail outlets.



> and 2) been in release at a time when D&D was already massively popular (i.e. numerous news stories, TV commercials, school gaming clubs, Saturday morning cartoon, etc.). To claim that the expandable nature of the game past the contents of the Basic Box was at the root of the Basic game's success is, IMO, ignoring a large body of evidence to the contrary.



Like I said: You might be right. The fact that during its periods of greatest success D&D had a boxed set that wasn't pay-to-preview might be a total coincidence. And the fact that the game went into decline right around the time they switched to pay-to-preview boxed sets might also be a coincidence.

There is, after all, a distinct lack of breadth in the empirical evidence to separate causation from correlation.

But I'd love it if WotC would give that to us some day. Unfortunately, the Starter Set obviously delays that.



MrMyth said:


> What I find amusing in those links is that, in the first, he says the 4 issues are that:
> -There hasn't been a game packaged to look like a game to the average customer;
> -There hasn't been a version packaged to sell through mainstream stores;
> -The entry cost for the game has been too high;
> ...




I think you're misreading what he wrote: His first qualification is that a legitimate gateway game that isn't pay-to-preview needs to _exist_. Since he feels that the Starter Set _is_ a pay-to-preview product, the fact that it's packaged in a box and sold through mainstream stores is irrelevant -- just like it was irrelevant with all the other boxed basic sets sold in the past 20 years (many of which were sold through mainstream stores).

Notably, for example, you're misquoting him. He didn't say "there hasn't been a game packaged to look like a game to the average customer". He said "there hasn't been any *legitimate version* of the game packaged to look like a game to the average consumer" (emphasis added).

You can't sell what you don't have. And WotC still doesn't have it.



filthgrinder said:


> If only WotC put out quick start rules and an entire adventure for free on their website.
> 
> Oh, hmm. I guess they did.




I'm not really sure what you think your point is. I think it's a great idea to offer free demos of your product. But that doesn't negate the fact that the Starter Set is a pay-to-preview product.

I know fanboys can have a difficult time holding nuanced opinions. But it is, in fact, possible to say, "WotC made a smart decision over here." While simultaneously believing that they made a poor decision somewhere else.



Mark CMG said:


> Anyway, this thread continues to suggest to me  that people who already play the current edition feel the red box will  bring in new players, sometimes via older players, and people who don't  play or like the current edition seem to be saying they aren't  interested.




Similarly, I think it's quite possible that pre-existing "edition bias" is factoring into people's opinions here. But, frankly, I was saying the same thing about the 3E Basic Games when they were released. And the '91 Basic Set when it was released. My opinion that pay-to-preview products are not the best way to sell D&D is pretty much edition neutral.

And the fact that the Starter Set isn't doing anything that hasn't been attempted by one of the half dozen or more basic games in the past 20 years isn't even a matter of opinion. 

I also believe that there's some legitimately great stuff happening with Essentials. I just wish they had put more of it in the Starter Set.


----------



## Ahwe Yahzhe (Oct 7, 2010)

*About the ad...*

...I liked the tightened-up version of the fan film contest winner (I saw the original at the Game Day awards presentation in Hollywood 3 years ago.)

But has anybody confirmed this is an actual WoTC ad?  Has anybody actually seen this thing on Hulu, let alone old-fashioned TV?

And has anybody actually seen a Red Box in a Target?  I stopped by one yesterday and saw fat shelf space for all kinds of kid's games, board games, and party games.  Hasbro is pushing a line of vintage wood case games (Clue, Risk, Stratego) that are prominently displayed, but no sign of a new Red Box.  It's also telling that it's not sold through their online channel either, and that of dozens of categories from which you can search for games, "Role-Playing Games" is not listed.

So I think we're all assuming that (1) this cool/lame ad is actual WotC marketing, and (2) that Hasbro cares enough about its niche hobby gaming subsidiary enough to even consider pushing for space on a discount retailer shelf.


----------



## Windjammer (Oct 7, 2010)

Edvamp said:


> and, God help me, Manowar




Manowar had its moments of glory which can be revisited without pain or embarassment, coincidentally moments not containing metal.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb46TxwEaZw&feature=related]Cue a great story[/ame], followed by one of the greatest hymns of all time.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 7, 2010)

billd91 said:


> No, I'm trying to explain a difference in the products, not the companies. Though maybe that's not a bad idea. How successful have WotC's intro versions of games been? There was Invasion of Theed for Star Wars and previous intro games for D&D. Did any of them make a splash like they probably wanted? I liked Invasion of Theed as an intro product... then found that once I had the full game book, I hardly used it. Since then, my thoughts on intro games have changed. I don't want to pay much money for something that's basically an ad for the full game. I'd pay a small amount for maybe a set of quick start rules to get a taste, then I haven't spent much before buying the main game obsoletes the introductory purchase.
> 
> Dragon Age, so far, seems to be what the original Red Box was. A game not meant to merely introduce and get the player to move on and leave it on the shelf, but to continue being played and added to.
> 
> I understand what you're saying about people moving from a basic boxed set to the AD&D line. I did the same. But that's to be expected once the player has encountered their gateway product. Other games may attract them away from the first one, particularly when they're so similar. But in the original Red Box's case, there was an alternative path to follow that kept the Red Box itself relevant and not gathering dust on the shelf. In other words, it wasn't just an advertisement for another set of products.




This is not entirely accurate.  I'll walk through it again.  The original basic set came out in 1977 (Holmes).  It had a blue cover (see below).  From the Wikipedia page:



> The original Basic Set is notable in that it was* intended as a bridge between the original D&D and the AD&D  rules* rather than a simple introductory version of the game. Unusual features of the original basic game include an alignment system of five alignments as opposed to the 3 or 9 alignments of the other versions. This Basic Set was very popular and allowed many to discover and experience the D&D game for the first time. *Although this Basic Set is not compatible with AD&D, players were expected to continue play beyond third level by moving to the AD&D version*; evidently the radical changes AD&D would make to the rules were not yet appreciated when the original Basic Set was produced.




It looked like this:







It was not until 1981, when Tom Moldvay revised the Basic set, that it was even conceived of as entirely its own game, instead of as a bridge to AD&D.  There was no Expert set, and there was nothing else to expand into other than AD&D (which of course repeated those three levels entirely).

I see no material difference between this new Red Box and the original Basic set.  Both are bridges to another, fuller game, which replaced or repeated all those rules.  You call it an ad for the other game, but I don't.  I call it a full game that only went to a lower number of experience levels than other games.

Second, the new red box contains 6 polyhedral dice, a double-sided map, 2 sheets of die-cut tokens, cardstock character sheets, power cards, and lot of cool pictures, and some interesting story content.  None of that is superseded by a follow-on book.  It's only $20 from Amazon, which isn't such a bad price for those game accessories.  It only sits on your shelf collecting dust if you never use those accessories, but I don't think it's fair to assume nobody will use them again.

Third, it's a complete game.  You can play it over and over, through first level, using just that box.  Much like you can play Settlers of Catan over and over again, using just that game box, without all the expansions or replacement games that followed in that line of games.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 8, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> > But in the original Red Box's case, there was an alternative path to  follow that kept the Red Box itself relevant and not gathering dust on  the shelf. In other words, it wasn't just an advertisement for another  set of products.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not entirely accurate.  I'll walk through it again.  The original basic set came out in 1977 (Holmes).  It had a blue cover (see below).




I've never heard the '77 Holmes edition referred to as the "red box". (Probably because, as you note, _it wasn't red_.) Acaeum refers to the '83 set as the first "red box", which is certainly what I've always heard.

I've occasionally heard the '81 Moldvay set referred to as "red box", which is somewhat more supportable but appears to be a relatively non-standard usage of the term. But by that point the Basic -> Expert expansion methodology was already in place.

Also, good luck convincing people that D&D is meant to be played as 1st level over and over and over again as the standard experience of the game.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 8, 2010)

I think you folks are hilariously mistaken if you believe the target audience of this ad - the guys who haven't played D&D for 30 years and who either want to kill orcs or get their kids to kill orcs - will take a side in your edition war. 

-O


----------



## fanboy2000 (Oct 8, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> I know fanboys can have a difficult time holding nuanced opinions.



Seriously, you're going to cast Summon Fanboy I? Fine with me, but the DM's a real bastard about that spell.

You: I cast Summon Fanboy I.

DM: O.k. a polar bear appears less than five feet away from you...

You: A polar bear?

DM: Yes. The polar bear says...

You: Wait, a talking polar bear?

DM: Yes. A talking polar bear.

You look-up the spell description to see if this is in line with the spell's effects. It says "Summons a fanboy who humorously comments on the action you decry as 'fanboyism.' May take any shape. And may try to dispel myths about fanboys." The spell only requires a verbal component.

DM: The talking bear says "I'm often critical of decisions made by Wizards, but quite happy with others. They're just not always the same decisions people complain about on the boards."


----------



## TarionzCousin (Oct 8, 2010)

steeldragons said:


> I think everyone needs to sit down, have a calming cup of whatever calms you, and rethink their definition of "exceedingly awesome."



What if my calming drink is this: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






The Shaman said:


> *_snortchortlesnort_*
> 
> Whatever this ad may or may not do, shouting rebellion isn't one of them.



Are you [-]saying[/-] snorting that heavy metal isn't rebellious? Seriously?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 8, 2010)

Beginning of the End, could you stop referring to yourself in the second person?  It's kinda weird, considering the blog you keep trying to pimp out with "his opinion is so right" is *your own blog*.


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 8, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> Are you [-]saying[/-] snorting . . .



Actually, that would be chortling - the snort is merely the breath drawn before and after a chortle. 







TarionzCousin said:


> . . . that heavy metal isn't rebellious? Seriously?



Not for twenty years at least. Seriously.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 8, 2010)

professorcirno said:


> beginning of the end, could you stop referring to yourself in the second person?  It's kinda weird, considering the blog you keep trying to pimp out with "his opinion is so right" is *your own blog*.




wtf?


----------



## vagabundo (Oct 8, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> wtf?




Arn't you Justin Alexander?


----------



## Aeolius (Oct 8, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> Are you [-]saying[/-] snorting that heavy metal isn't rebellious? Seriously?




You want rebellious? The next time someone pulls up to an intersection blaring rap music, reply by blasting the Spongebob Ripped Pants song at full volume! Granted, it helps to have a car full of kids, otherwise it looks kinda creepy.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 8, 2010)

vagabundo said:


> Arn't you Justin Alexander?



And if he isn't, I'd like to know why his sig makes him the spokesman of Dream Machine Productions ("Dream Machine Productions" ... trademarks owned by Justin Alexander. Used with permission.) and links Dweredell on Lulu (By Justin Alexander).

Well spotted Prof. Cirno  (can't give you experience points for the catch at the moment - could someone else please?).  Although you meant third person not second.  Does this count as a form of sockpuppetry?


----------



## Jack Colby (Oct 8, 2010)

The ad is embarrassing. They are trying too hard and it shows.


----------



## Maggan (Oct 8, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> And if he isn't, I'd like to know why his sig makes him the spokesman of Dream Machine Productions ("Dream Machine Productions" ... trademarks owned by Justin Alexander. Used with permission.) and links Dweredell on Lulu (By Justin Alexander).




Maybe he's Justin's biggest fan?

/M


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 8, 2010)

Is it wrong that I recognised every one of the pictures?


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 8, 2010)

If I walk into a gay bar, and I see one of the beer taps is rainbow colored and the handle is shaped like a man's torso, I don't think, "What a strange marketing campaign for Miller Light." Instead, I assume the marketing campaign is aimed at a particular group of people who will appreciate the outreach.


----------



## buddhafrog (Oct 9, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> If I walk into a gay bar, and I see one of the beer taps is rainbow colored and the handle is shaped like a man's torso, I don't think, "What a strange marketing campaign for Miller Light." Instead, I assume the marketing campaign is aimed at a particular group of people who will appreciate the outreach.




I'm glad that Pawsplay is out of his D&D closet.  There aren't many openly gay D&D players and I wish there were more.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Oct 9, 2010)

*Wow*

What an insanely cool ad!  Then again, I am definitely the target audience -- I associate the sound of Led Zepellin with old memories of playing RPGs at my friend's house.

Ken


----------



## IronWolf (Oct 9, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> Is it wrong that I recognised every one of the pictures?




No.  It means you are one of us.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Oct 9, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> Are you [-]saying[/-] snorting that heavy metal isn't rebellious? Seriously?






The Shaman said:


> Not for twenty years at least. Seriously.



I've put the question to the jury here. Everybody is welcome to vote.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 9, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> If I walk into a gay bar, and I see one of the beer taps is rainbow colored and the handle is shaped like a man's torso, I don't think, "What a strange marketing campaign for Miller Light." Instead, I assume the marketing campaign is aimed at a particular group of people who will appreciate the outreach.







buddhafrog said:


> I'm glad that Pawsplay is out of his D&D closet.  There aren't many openly gay D&D players and I wish there were more.





Different taps for different chaps.


----------



## demetri0us (Oct 10, 2010)

I like it. I can't say I really understand why folks who play D&D wouldn't. Clearly, they are trying to play towards an audience that would recognize the images and/or be interested enough to go find out more.

I'm not sure what folks would prefer in a commercial for D&D. That's not to say this is the paragon of what a D&D commercial could be, but I can tell you, this:

If WotC had used real live people (at a gaming table or in an imagination-LARPY-kinda-thing, it would have been all sorts of campy. Can you imagine it? No matter how they did it, it would be a joke. And CG? Well, I'd be to do that right, it would be super expensive, and still, it'd have to be amazing to not nudge right up against joke-dom.

This commercial seems pretty solid to me. Though, I don't like music. Not that they need to cater to me mind you!


----------



## Darynal (Oct 10, 2010)

Mark CMG said:


> Different taps for different chaps.




Lol.  Indeed.



demetri0us said:


> I like it. I can't say I really understand why folks who play D&D wouldn't. Clearly, they are trying to play towards an audience that would recognize the images and/or be interested enough to go find out more.




The ad definitely has a narrow appeal due to that.  I thought it was alright, but honestly the beginning kind of confused me.. and it was only because I recognized the old d&d art that I got it half-way through.

Which is kind of beyond the "either you got my attention, or you don't" point when it comes to ads.  Most people probably would have shut their attention off from it, but it's still kind of a cool ad I guess


----------



## Toben the Many (Oct 10, 2010)

Well, the ad is obviously directed at two different groups of people. By putting it in the red box, by calling it the red box, and by putting the old art on the cover, they are obviously going to the nostalgia factor. They are aiming right at all of the lapsed players who will get a zap of good memories from the art and the music, frankly. When I first started playing, that was most certainly the kind of music I listened to and what was on the cassette tape at the time. 

However, I think it's very effective for new players as well. Most kids that I know love retro stuff and retro-feeling material. They listen to most of the same music that I listened to in the 70's and 80's. But what's more is that the ad is just very _intriguing_. I like the fact that the ad doesn't really tell you much. What you want someone to do is to get intrigued and go out and explore what the heck the red box is and what it's all about.

One more thing - there's just no way you could inject a full description of what the red box is into a 30 second ad. Especially not without it being cheesy. I love what they've done with this.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Oct 11, 2010)

demetri0us said:


> I'm not sure what folks would prefer in a commercial for D&D. That's not to say this is the paragon of what a D&D commercial could be, but I can tell you, this:
> 
> If WotC had used real live people (at a gaming table or in an imagination-LARPY-kinda-thing, it would have been all sorts of campy. Can you imagine it? No matter how they did it, it would be a joke. And CG? Well, I'd be to do that right, it would be super expensive, and still, it'd have to be amazing to not nudge right up against joke-dom.




I think this is a really good point. There is no way to communicate the essence of D&D in a 30-second TV spot in a straight-up manner. The imagery associated with gameplay is frankly boring at best. Imagery associated with what the game is about (CGI dragons and whatnot) is even more closely associated with electronic games and movies. Mixing them would give you a modern version of those horrible TSR ads from the 80s.

The trick is to make an ad that communicates the FUN associated with the game without getting too literal about it. I think this ad does so while going down the nostalgia path. There may be other ways to do it without nostalgia. But anything that works is NOT going to be a literal ad about how to play RPGs or what's in the basic game box.


----------



## Aeolius (Oct 11, 2010)

Toben the Many said:


> When I first started playing, that was most certainly the kind of music I listened to and what was on the cassette tape at the time.




By contrast, this is the kind of music I was listening to, when I first started playing:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-atojk5e0o"]Volcano[/ame]

and:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpWNimba344"]Equinoxe[/ame]

Maybe I've been playing D&D wrong, all these years!


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Oct 11, 2010)

I mentioned this in the other thread about this commercial, but the reason I feel that the "cheap" nature of the commercial works is that it fits in well with [adult swim] style cartoons and marketing.

When I saw the commercial, it was on Hulu.com while I was watching Caprica. It fit in seamlessly with the other ads, even though the budget was obviously much, much lower.

I enjoyed the "commercial" so much that I posted it on my Facebook, even though I already own the new Red Box (and was unimpressed with it) and I probably won't be buying D&D4es products from Target. 

It certainly targets me as a person who could recognize 90% of the artwork instantly. I marked out at the cheap little animated version of Fiend Folio monsters. But, oddly enough, I found the flash cartoons WotC had during the beginning of 4e to be too amateurish -- a strange dichotomy, I know.


----------



## Fippy_Darkpaw (Oct 11, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> And if he isn't, I'd like to know why his sig makes him the spokesman of Dream Machine Productions ("Dream Machine Productions" ... trademarks owned by Justin Alexander. Used with permission.) and links Dweredell on Lulu (By Justin Alexander).
> 
> Well spotted Prof. Cirno  (can't give you experience points for the catch at the moment - could someone else please?).  Although you meant third person not second.  Does this count as a form of sockpuppetry?




Nice job on that perception check. 

BTW, anyone know the origin of the music track on the commercial? Tried the Shazam Iphone music ID app and cannot find a match. It is pretty decent at identifying tracks. Tried it on Deicide and Sepultura and it worked. So whatever track is on that commercial is fairly obscure.


----------



## Nardil (Oct 11, 2010)

CharlesRyan said:


> Wow. That is truly awesome. How did I not see this before?
> 
> As for not being very red box, I disagree. Everybody that this ad is aimed at will recognize it. Instantly.



I disagree. The Red Box is aimed at new D&D players. How can you expect non-players to know anything about it without giving any actual information?


----------



## Nifft (Oct 11, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> If I walk into a gay bar, and I see one of the beer taps is rainbow colored and the handle is shaped like a man's torso, I don't think, "What a strange marketing campaign for Miller Light." Instead, I assume the marketing campaign is aimed at a particular group of people who will appreciate the outreach.



 Are you implying there are straight people who drink Miller Light?

(Actually, I take that back. I wouldn't wish Miller Light on any demographic.)

Beers, -- N


----------



## Nifft (Oct 11, 2010)

Nardil said:


> I disagree. The Red Box is aimed at new D&D players. How can you expect non-players to know anything about it without giving any actual information?



 These days I don't expect a commercial to educate its audience. The audience can educate itself with five minutes of typing & clicking.

All the commercial has to do is get you interested in whatever its trying to sell.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Oct 11, 2010)

Nardil said:


> I disagree. The Red Box is aimed at new D&D players. How can you expect non-players to know anything about it without giving any actual information?




Yup the Red Box is indeed aimed at new (4E) players.  The commercial seems to be targeted to lapsed players who haven't played in 20 years.  All the images used come from that era (not necessarily the old Red Box but even if you played 1E back then you still knew there was a 'kid's version' of 1E in the BECMI box sets - at least that was how my circle of friends viewed them back then).  I doubt it will bring many of those players back but I could definitely see them buying the Red Box for their kids/nephews/nieces.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 12, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> WotC talked a good game, but the new Starter Set isn't the spiritual inheritor of the Red Box. Instead, it's yet another product taking its inspiration from AD&D's First Quest: Try to get people to pay $20 or $30 for a demo version of the game that's designed to be stuck on the shelf and never looked at again once they buy the real version of the game. (And maybe if you load it up with enough bling, they won't notice that they just paid for advertising.)




Color me really confused on this...

I mean if you consider this boxed set simply an advertisement, because it's destined to sit on a shelf after being used, do you also consider all adventure modules ever made an advertisement for the game?

This boxed set is basically an adventure, with a section designed to teach a completely inexperienced player how to get into and start using the game (in a fun way that feels D&D like from the start) plus rules for making an adventure and running one on his own, plus all of the materials needed to use the box (dice, maps, cards, tokens... AKA the "bling" you mentioned...)

ALL of this at only 20 bux...  When most adventures alone run between 20-30 dollars or more... This is an insanely good deal I'd say.

Calling this simply an "Advertisement" strikes me as someone who never bothered to actually look at what the box contained and was designed to do...

Also considering the dice are definitely re-usable, the maps and tokens are re-usable to an extent, and a box can even hold your gear for you... This thing is more re-usable than most adventures.


----------



## Toben the Many (Oct 12, 2010)

Nifft said:


> These days I don't expect a commercial to educate its audience. The audience can educate itself with five minutes of typing & clicking.
> 
> All the commercial has to do is get you interested in whatever its trying to sell.




I agree wholeheartedly. 

Look at the World of Warcraft TV ads. They don't tell you anything about the game, really. You know it's on the computer. You know it's high fantasy. But it doesn't take time to explain to you what an MMO is or how you play one. But they are really funny and get you intrigued enough to go investigate more.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 12, 2010)

Nifft said:


> These days I don't expect a commercial to educate its audience. The audience can educate itself with five minutes of typing & clicking.
> 
> All the commercial has to do is get you interested in whatever its trying to sell.




This is true, and a good point.



Scribble said:


> ALL of this at only 20 bux...  When most adventures alone run between 20-30 dollars or more... This is an insanely good deal I'd say.




Most of the adventures I buy these days are quite a bit cheaper than the ones you are buying.  Paizo adventures (but not the adventure paths), Advanced Adventures, and others are a much better deal, offering far more (convertable) bang for my buck.


RC


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 12, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> And if he isn't, I'd like to know why his sig makes him the spokesman of Dream Machine Productions ("Dream Machine Productions" ... trademarks owned by Justin Alexander. Used with permission.) and links Dweredell on Lulu (By Justin Alexander).
> 
> Well spotted Prof. Cirno  (can't give you experience points for the catch at the moment - could someone else please?).  Although you meant third person not second.  Does this count as a form of sockpuppetry?




Yup. You guys caught me.

In other news: Mike Mearls and Bill Slavicsek are both the same person. Mike, after all, works for Bill. So they must be the same guy!


----------



## Nifft (Oct 12, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Yup. You guys caught me.
> 
> In other news: Mike Mearls and Bill Slavicsek are both the same person. Mike, after all, works for Bill. So they must be the same guy!



 Are you trying to imply that, rather than make a sock-puppet account to promote yourself, you *paid someone else* to act as your sock-puppet?

I find that... unlikely.

Ciao, -- N


----------



## fanboy2000 (Oct 12, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Are you trying to imply that, rather than make a sock-puppet account to promote yourself, you *paid someone else* to act as your sock-puppet?
> 
> I find that... unlikely.



Actually, I believe that he's implying that someone _else_ is _paying him_ to be their sock-puppet.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 12, 2010)

fanboy2000 said:


> Actually, I believe that he's implying that someone _else_ is _paying him_ to be their sock-puppet.



 The only difference in our interpretations is whether we take what he's implying at face value. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Scribble (Oct 12, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Most of the adventures I buy these days are quite a bit cheaper than the ones you are buying.  Paizo adventures (but not the adventure paths), Advanced Adventures, and others are a much better deal, offering far more (convertable) bang for my buck.




The convert-able thing is a subjective preference thing, so I can't really argue that... I'm not sure I even see the relevance. My argument is on a purely economical what you get for your money- this thing is an adventure plus, for a low cost. 

Most print form adventures at Paizo are about 13 bux it seems- so sure 7 dollars cheaper, however, you also don't get:

Dice
Maps
Tokens
A tutorial teaching you how to play the game
Extra info for creating a secondary adventure (including info for leveling up the characters, monsters, treasure...)

Even a box to hold it all. 

AKA you get everything in this one box that you need to play the adventure contained within, even if you've never played D&D before in your life.

Most adventures, even when designed for level 1- still require that you have a copy of the rules, your own dice, minis or tokens, etc...

This has it all.

Is it for everyone? No- obviously not. But my point is for a beginner who wants to experience/learn get started in D&D? This is a great deal, and much more then just an ad disguised with "bling."

Is it designed to kind of be used then sit on the shelf- sure... But no more so (and somewhat less so) then just about any adventure out there.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 12, 2010)

I think we can bring the whole "sock puppet or not" discussion to rest now, thanks.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 13, 2010)

Scribble said:


> The convert-able thing is a subjective preference thing, so I can't really argue that... I'm not sure I even see the relevance. My argument is on a purely economical what you get for your money- this thing is an adventure plus, for a low cost.




I'm going to stop you there for a moment. 

If your main point is that the Red Box is more than an ad you pay for, I agree with you.

If your main point is that the Red Box is a good deal for an adventure, then I disagree.

Of course, as to the second case, if you need new dice, tokens, and a box, then I will concede that these are value-added extras.  I don't think that the Red Box is overpriced -- it is priced low enough that, even as a non-4e player, I find the price attractive.  Especially in regards to other WotC modules, as you noted.

The Red Box really isn't designed for my consumption.  As I said, I would have been disappointed had I bought in on the basis of the commercial.  And I can easily imagine that someone, thinking of buying it for his kids or grandkids, might mistake it for a product he once knew.  I dislike that a lot.

But I do like the commercial for what it is.  I am one of those individuals who actually knows where most (if not all) of the artwork came from, too.  And I would be delighted if WotC committed to creating products with the same asthetic as the era that produced that artwork.  

[I guess, really, that boils down to (1) what kind of fantasy moves me, and (2) what kind of game systems move me.  I have said before that about half of what WotC did with 4e is of interest to me, and the other half leaves me cold.  Now if they could just get the second half to match the first half.....Well, I would be more of a customer than I am.]

If the ad was reworked so that the older artwork led into new era pieces -- ones inspired by, and reflecting, the originals -- I think it would be just as effective, and wouldn't feel so misleading.

IMHO, anyway.  YMMV.



> Is it designed to kind of be used then sit on the shelf- sure... But no more so (and somewhat less so) then just about any adventure out there.




I have found the re-usability of some of the classic modules, with their focus on *location* over *individual encounter *set-up, to be highly reusable.  This is true for early 3e modules as well....pre-delve format, anyway.  Forge of Fury, Keep on the Borderlands, and Hommlet are all areas that can be reused throughout a campaign.  Because some of the earlier modules include so many potential encounters -- and the possibility of encountering the same creatures more than once -- they can supply far more to an ongoing campaign than their page count might indicate.

As a good example of this, even using a system where the average fight takes only 15 minutes or less, _*The Pods Cavern of the Sinister Shroom*_ supplied many weeks of adventure, with the characters making multiple forays, and still has an entire level unexplored.....as well as a villain who has escaped to potentially plague the area again.

So, I don't agree that other modules are intended to be used once and shelved.  I think that the current format WotC is using tends to encourage this, but then I also think that WotC would be putting out much better modules if they just ditched the delve.  


RC


----------



## Hussar (Oct 13, 2010)

Even discounting everything else, twenty bucks for an adventure isn't bad.  It might be more than other adventures, but, it's still in the right ball park.

I wonder how much regular modules would cost if they included tokens and battlemaps, never minding the other stuff.

If you play a 3e or 4e adventure, the assumption is there that you will use tokens of some sort and a battlemap.  None of that is free.  I remember the old Dragonlance modules, many of which had tokens and battlemaps, retailing somewhere around the ten or fifteen buck (Canadian) mark about twenty-five years ago.

So, twenty bucks US is hardly out of line.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 13, 2010)

Again, it depends upon the value of the adventure.  I've gotten adventures that cost much more, while feeling that I've gotten full value.  I've also gotten far cheaper ones where I felt ripped off.

So, yes, the Red Box is priced about right for what it is.  IMHO.  No, it is not priced right for the adventure it contains.  IMHO.  So, I wouldn't think about it in that way.

I know people's mileage varies quite a bit on both of those opinions!  


RC


----------



## Hussar (Oct 13, 2010)

Oh, you're saying something other than what I thought you were saying.  I haven't seen anything of the module contained, so, I have no idea of the quality or what it's about.  

I thought we were talking about somewhat more concrete things like production values and what you are physically getting for your dollar.  

Is it good enough to be valued at 20 bucks?  Have no idea.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Oct 13, 2010)

*So, actually about the ad ...*

It made me laugh.  That's all I can say.  

I appreciate that, but it was more of a "laugh at" rather than a "laugh with", so ... probably didn't work as an ad for me at all.


----------



## pming (Oct 13, 2010)

Hiya.

If I was a newbie, I'd be confused when I bought the Essentials Red Box; the ad has all this artwork and stuff...and that's nothing like what I'd be looking at.

If I was an old guarde being luered back, I'd be PO'ed because what they seem to be selling is nothing like what I'd remember.

Overall, bad ad. The only people it may not tick off or confuse are going to be people who are already playing 4e...thus, defeating the inteded purpose of the add in the first place (re: bringing in new blood).

 (YMMV)

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 13, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Is it good enough to be valued at 20 bucks?  Have no idea.




I think so.  I also think that the Essentials books are reasonably priced.

Of course, that "I think so" assumes that you will find the product fun to play; no product is a good value for *everyone*, regardless of the price!  




RC


----------



## CharlesRyan (Oct 13, 2010)

pming said:


> If I was an old guarde being luered back, I'd be PO'ed because what they seem to be selling is nothing like what I'd remember.




If you were old guard and you picked up the box, you're probably thinking "Wow! I remember this!"

You admire the box as nostalgic memory rolls over you. And then you turn the box over and see the back. You then think one of two things:


Hey, this isn't the same thing. Oh, well. Or,
Hey, looks like they've made a new version. Cool, I'll check it out!

In case one, you walk away. No harm, no foul, no reason to feel ripped off.

In case two, you plunk down your 20 bucks knowing that you're buying something new and keen to see how D&D has changed in the last 25 years. Given your look at the box and your knowledge that _everything in the whole world has changed in the last 25 years_, you don't feel ripped off to find a game that's different in mechanics, but the same in the overall experience.

Where's the problem?


----------



## Hussar (Oct 13, 2010)

Does anyone buy anything that's 25 years old and expect it to be the same?  Other than a few perrenials like Monopoly or Othelo, I think it's pretty rare to actually expect something that I did 25 years ago to be the same today.

Someone who dropped the hobby 25 years ago did so for a reason.  If they really liked the game back then, would it not be fair to assume that they wouldn't have dropped it?  The game wasn't good enough for them to stick with it, for whatever reason.  So, if the game was the same as it was 25 years ago, why would it draw them back in?

To put it rather bluntly, the game didn't have enough draw to keep its customers.  Why put out the same product in the hopes that somehow it will magically bring the customers back?  After all, the same product had nearly 20 years (1980's and 1990's) to bring those lapsed gamers back into the fold and failed to do so.  Why on earth would anyone continue to throw the same product back at the wall in the hopes that if you do it just enough times, it will bring people into the game?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 13, 2010)

Apart from rpgs, most games sold today are the same as -- or very close to -- what they were 25 years ago.  One would assume that, if someone doesn't already know that they made a new version, that would be low on the list of expectations for a game.

Or, to put it another way, apart from rpgs, what game can you think of that has changed substantially over the last 25 years?  My old copy of Hoyle is as relevant today as it was when it was printed!

If the target market is people who were interested, but are not hardcore gamers, then they are probably not expecting a new version without a new name.  I.e., they might know that there is a Dungeons & Dragons and an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, but would probably imagine that these names still carry the same meaning now that they did then.

That was certainly my experience talking to lapsed gamers when I co-owned Golden City Comics.  YMMV.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 13, 2010)

Hussar said:


> To put it rather bluntly, the game didn't have enough draw to keep its customers.





What is your basis for this claim?  AFAICT, there are still substantial groups of people playing just about every version of D&D imaginable.  Due to the retro-clone movement, I can go to Hairy Tarantula and buy print modules for OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord today.  Some really, really great ones, too!

If the lapse of some customers meant that a line had no draw, well, I know several lapsed 4e players, lots of lapsed 3e players, and even one or two lapsed RCFG players.  In all these cases, I am sure that the draw of the game still exists.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Oct 13, 2010)

Pick up any video game and tell me that RC.

Again, other than the Milton Bradley style board games, I'd say most of the game change pretty significantly over time.

Axis and Allies?
Risk?
Talisman?

Or, hey, Games Workshop?

Yes, I did say there were perenial games that never change.  Sure.  But, a great many of the board games just go out of print and new titles take over.  

Then again, there is the presumption here that if something is different than before, that will turn away potential returnees.  My point is, the same thing, published for the better part of two decades, couldn't bring them back.  The Basic set, whether Mentzer or the Red Box, couldn't keep people at the table.  They just didn't do it.  If they had, then why are there all these lapsed gamers?

So, why would we even want to throw the same thing back in the ring when it failed to keep people in the hobby?  Why not try something new since doing the same thing over and over and over again failed?


----------



## Hussar (Oct 13, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> What is your basis for this claim?  AFAICT, there are still substantial groups of people playing just about every version of D&D imaginable.  Due to the retro-clone movement, I can go to Hairy Tarantula and buy print modules for OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord today.  Some really, really great ones, too!




Irrelevant.  These people are still playing, so, obviously, they're not lapsed.  However, the game failed to keep significant numbers, and that's what WOTC is trying to draw back in.




> If the lapse of some customers meant that a line had no draw, well, I know several lapsed 4e players, lots of lapsed 3e players, and even one or two lapsed RCFG players.  In all these cases, I am sure that the draw of the game still exists.
> 
> 
> RC




No, there's a difference in having "no" draw and "not enough" draw.  If the game had enough draw, then people wouldn't have dropped it.  That's pretty obvious to me.  That people dropped it, meant that it didn't have enough draw for them.  Perhaps they found something they enjoyed more, perhaps it was time related, whatever.  For whatever reason, the game did not hold them enough for them to make the effort to remain in the hobby.

Now, we're talking about a product with a lifespan of almost two decades between Holmes, Mentzer and Red box Basic D&D.  That's nothing to be ashamed of.  It did very well.  

But, assuming that simply bringing it back will draw players back is wishful thinking.  It lost.  There's no other way to put it.  It didn't have the staying power to keep its audience to the point where it was economically viable to continue putting the game out.

Thus, it didn't have enough interest in it to keep it going.  

So, why would bringing back the same game suddenly cause these people, who didn't stay with the hobby when they could have easily back in the day - it was pretty widely available - suddenly cause them to stop and say, "Hey, gee, I should get back into this thing that I stopped doing fifteen years ago because I lost interest in it"?


----------



## billd91 (Oct 13, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Someone who dropped the hobby 25 years ago did so for a reason.  If they really liked the game back then, would it not be fair to assume that they wouldn't have dropped it?  The game wasn't good enough for them to stick with it, for whatever reason.  So, if the game was the same as it was 25 years ago, why would it draw them back in?




That's a mighty strong assumption. There are *many* factors that can keep a player from playing a game with as much of a time commitment as D&D. How many of us had a harder time finding game time as we became adults with jobs, spouses, mortgages, and kids? Some of us still find the time to play, yes, but plenty don't and I'm not about to say it's because they didn't really like the game.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 13, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I'm going to stop you there for a moment.
> 
> If your main point is that the Red Box is more than an ad you pay for, I agree with you.
> 
> ...


----------



## CharlesRyan (Oct 13, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Someone who dropped the hobby 25 years ago did so for a reason.  If they really liked the game back then, would it not be fair to assume that they wouldn't have dropped it?  The game wasn't good enough for them to stick with it, for whatever reason.




The market research is pretty unequivocal: Very few people leave D&D because they stop liking it. The overwhelming majority leave because of lifestyle changes that separate them from their established group or make the RPG time commitment impractical: Changing or leaving school, moving, getting married, having children, etc.

That said, the broader point (that lapsed players are open to new mechanics) is quite valid; in my (anecdotal) experience, not a single lapsed player returning to the game was surprised or concerned about the fact that the game had evolved.


----------



## Orius (Oct 13, 2010)

Wepwawet said:


> Gods! Is this for real?
> Do WotC know we're in 2010?
> This makes no sense nowadays. The aesthetics are awfully outdated and the music is so... 80s heavy metal
> 
> I understand that to old gamers and original red box gamers this is something orgasmically awesome, but come on, using this as the ad for the current 4th edition of D&D, published in 2008 is just pointless.




Yup, I've been thinking the same thing.  I can't help but think this thing shrieks "uncool".  The old art or whatever it is comes off as dorky to me, though that might be because I'm so used to being in an un-nerdy community that it has me very deep in the so-called "RPG closet".  And while I've only seen the commercial with the sound off, I'm pretty sure kids today are not into metal at all.

Then again, if it's not aimed at teens it might not be a flop.

As for me, it's irrelevant.  I've known about this thing for months thanks to ENWorld.  I'm more interested in that Rule Compendium book they're supposed to be releasing later though.



Ahwe Yahzhe said:


> But has anybody confirmed this is an actual WoTC ad?  Has anybody actually seen this thing on Hulu, let alone old-fashioned TV?





I will also confirm that it's been making the rounds on Hulu.  I've been seeing it over the last week or so on Stargate Universe and Firefly.  I suppose they're running it over the Sci-Fi/Fantasy channel (makes senese).  When the ad comes up, I click on the "Not Relevant" button, but I do that for all the ads.  There's a rebellious part of me that doesn't want them to get any ad feedback at all because I feel it violates my privacy.  It may have backfired a bit a few months ago when they "tailored" ads for feminine hygene products though.  



Plane Sailing said:


> Is it wrong that I recognised every one of the pictures?




Didn't you create some of that stuff originally?


----------



## Hussar (Oct 13, 2010)

billd91 said:


> That's a mighty strong assumption. There are *many* factors that can keep a player from playing a game with as much of a time commitment as D&D. How many of us had a harder time finding game time as we became adults with jobs, spouses, mortgages, and kids? Some of us still find the time to play, yes, but plenty don't and I'm not about to say it's because they didn't really like the game.




But that's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is they didn't like the game enough.

That's should be pretty obvious.  If they did like the game enough, they would prioritize to the point where they could play.  We all do it.  Anyone who has kids, a job, other hobbies, whatnot, has faced the choice - give up gaming or give up something else.

I'd say that you and I made the same choice - give up something else.  Or, arrange our schedules so that gaming is a priority.  I know I get mighty testy when my wife tries to schedule something during game time.  I've blocked out that time and guarded it pretty strongly over the years.

The game, or the hobby if you will, is enough of a priority for me that I made that decision.

For someone who chose differently, who chose to give up gaming, obviously the priority was different.  The game wasn't enough of a priority for them to stick with it.

So, again, if the rules from fifteen or twenty years ago weren't enough to keep gaming as a priority, why would they suddenly become good enough now?  Someone who dropped the hobby during the hey days of the 80's has had the better part of twenty years to make gaming a priority again.

And, for all that time, there's been a basic set - either Mentzer or the original red box - waiting for them.  And they didn't pick it up.  

Now, the entry boxes in the 3e era were not particularly well done and I think everyone pretty much agrees with that.  So, skip ahead to today.

Our lapsed gamer has been out of the hobby for fifteen or so years.  He dropped the hobby because whatever he was doing at that time wasn't enough for him to make it a priority.  So, again, why would bringing back something that failed to keep him in the hobby in the first place, suddenly bring him back to the hobby?

I know there is this sort of dream that people seem to have that if they build it, they will come.  If we could just get enough people to see what's there, they'd come back.  But, we've had, what, seven years of Osric?  Several years of various retro-clones?  And, none of them have managed to bring people back in significant numbers.

If there was this huge glut of lapsed gamers just waiting for the same old thing to roll back out again, why haven't they descended in droves onto several versions of OSR games?  Going by WOTC's numbers, the number of lapsed gamers out there dwarfs the current gamers by a whole bunch.

Yet, despite any number of games that would certainly qualify as a rereleased Red Box (Basic Fantasy, a bag full of retro-clones, OSRIC (hell, that's FREE!), etc) we've yet to see a huge increase in the numbers of current gamers.

So, no, going back to the same well that's been dried up for over a decade is not the secret to success.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 13, 2010)

CharlesRyan said:


> The market research is pretty unequivocal: Very few people leave D&D because they stop liking it. The overwhelming majority leave because of lifestyle changes that separate them from their established group or make the RPG time commitment impractical: Changing or leaving school, moving, getting married, having children, etc.
> 
> That said, the broader point (that lapsed players are open to new mechanics) is quite valid; in my (anecdotal) experience, not a single lapsed player returning to the game was surprised or concerned about the fact that the game had evolved.




In hindsight, I see that my phrasing was unfortunate.

Let me be very clear.  I'm not saying that people left the hobby because they stopped liking it.  

I am saying that they left the hobby because they didn't like it enough to make it a priority.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 13, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Pick up any video game and tell me that RC.




Which video games have changed?  Do you mean that I can pick up a video game now that has exactly the same title as one from 25 years ago, and it will be significantly different?  I thought that they prominently changed the names (i.e., "Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time") in order to signify that it was a new game.  I was also under the impression that the graphics were prominently changed in order to demonstrate the same thing.  For example, I have never seen a game called "Pong" using images from earlier "Pong" being used to sell a radically new "Pong".  Perhaps, though, I'm out of the loop on developments in Pong and Centipede.



> The Basic set, whether Mentzer or the Red Box, couldn't keep people at the table.  They just didn't do it.  If they had, then why are there all these lapsed gamers?




Again, where is your evidence?  What are you basing this on?

All of these "lapsed gamers" in the WotC polls include gamers who didn't move on from those games.  The evidence you seem to be relying on might well be due to your point being 180 degrees backward.



Hussar said:


> Irrelevant.  These people are still playing, so, obviously, they're not lapsed.  However, the game failed to keep significant numbers, and that's what WOTC is trying to draw back in.




Again, the WotC survey is looking at "lapsed players" being "players not buying current WotC products" rather than "players no longer playing any version of D&D".  

If this is what you are relying on, it doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means.



Scribble said:


> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to stop you there for a moment.
> ...




Pretty much "great", I'd say.  My overall impression is that the product is a good deal, on average, for the price point.  

I just wish it was more clearly differentiated in its trade dress/advertising from the earlier Red Box.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Oct 13, 2010)

RC said:
			
		

> Which video games have changed? Do you mean that I can pick up a video game now that has exactly the same title as one from 25 years ago, and it will be significantly different? I thought that they prominently changed the names (i.e., "Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time") in order to signify that it was a new game. I was also under the impression that the graphics were prominently changed in order to demonstrate the same thing. For example, I have never seen a game called "Pong" using images from earlier "Pong" being used to sell a radically new "Pong". Perhaps, though, I'm out of the loop on developments in Pong and Centipede.




Halo.

Starcraft.

Warcraft.

The various Ultima games.

Final Fantasy - compare FF1 to the current FF game - 12?

I'm not even much of a video gamer and even I know that games change pretty significantly between versions.

But, your point about Pong brings it right back.  Why don't we get Pong games?  When is the last time you saw Pong anywhere?

Is it because Pong is a bad game?  No, of course not.  It was a great game.  Lots of fun.  Space Invaders was huge at the time.   But, we don't see it anymore.

So, despite the fact that people probably still like Pong or Space Invaders, the games died.  They died because people didn't like them enough to keep them alive.  Or, to put it another way, they liked other things more.  Either way the end result is the same.

The games didn't hold people's interests enough for people to keep playing them.  Not because they were bad or people hated them or anything like that.  But just because, after so long, there are just other choices out there that are more appealing.



			
				RC said:
			
		

> Again, where is your evidence? What are you basing this on?




Well, I'm basing this on the fact that TSR went  up.  If TSR had managed to retain their player base at 1982 levels, we'd still be playing 1e.  After 1982 until 3e came along, D&D did nothing but bleed away players.  Every year the number of gamers dropped, at least, that appears to be the conventional wisdom, until 3e managed to turn the bus around.

If the older games retained their players, why was the player base dropping every year?


----------



## Nikosandros (Oct 13, 2010)

Orius said:


> I'm more interested in that Rule Compendium book they're supposed to be releasing later though.



The Rules Compendium has been out for about a month and it is indeed a good book, even if you aren't especially interested in the rest of the Essentials line.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 13, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Pretty much "great", I'd say.  My overall impression is that the product is a good deal, on average, for the price point.
> 
> I just wish it was more clearly differentiated in its trade dress/advertising from the earlier Red Box.
> 
> ...




Well- to each his/her own man. 

I personally love the look.  It makes me happy.  

I look at it and can't help but remember all the fun I've had/am still having with this game over the years.


But... to maybe calm your fears? From what I've heard the second printing will have new artwork on it and the new logo... This current form was done just for nostalgia/fun.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 13, 2010)

@ Scribble:  I wouldn't call it "fears", but that's good news from where I sit.  I think WotC is going in a much better direction now than they were when 4e was first announced.

@ Hussar:  If you believe you have sufficient evidence for that claim, far be it from me to suggest that you rethink it.  From where I'm sitting, your evidence is so extremely thin as to not count as evidenciary at all.  To each his own, I suppose.


RC


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 13, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Someone who dropped the hobby 25 years ago did so for a reason.  If they really liked the game back then, would it not be fair to assume that they wouldn't have dropped it?




No.  Of course that's not a fair assumption.  There are tons of things in life I really like, but end up dropping for a variety of reasons.  Particularly when that thing depends on at least 3 other people also being around and still liking it! 

You could:

1) Get distracted by something else you also like;
2) Have other players or DM move away or loose interest;
3) Have a disagreement that results in a group breaking up;
4) Burn out temporarily on the game;
5) Temporarily not have the time or space for the game;
6) Lose the game books and not be able to replace them at the time;
7) Go through a phase which impacts your desire or ability to play the game;
8) Date someone who doesn't approve of the game, or who takes all your attention from the game;
etc..

There are tons of reasons to stop doing something you like.  Heck, I stopped watching South Park for 3 years, forgot why, and went back to watching and enjoying it.  

It's just not a good assumption to make.



> The game wasn't good enough for them to stick with it, for whatever reason.  So, if the game was the same as it was 25 years ago, why would it draw them back in?




In addition to all the reasons why it was a bad assumption that they didn't like it enough to begin with, this is also a bad assumption.  Pretend for a moment that someone did burn out on it...that stuff tends to fade with time.  Also, perhaps they don't want to play anymore, but they have enough nostalgia of all the good times they did have playing it at one time that they want to buy it for their kids or nephews or something?



> To put it rather bluntly, the game didn't have enough draw to keep its customers.  Why put out the same product in the hopes that somehow it will magically bring the customers back?




Because it's not magical, and there are hundreds of logical reasons why it would work to bring people to buy it again.  In fact, it's slightly insulting to imply the people who disagree with you on this are assuming it's "magic" that will result in sales here.

You know, I don't buy licorice every week of my life.  But I bought it sometimes as a kid, and I buy it sometimes as an adult.  It's not magic.  It's just changing tastes and moods and money and environment and many other factors.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 13, 2010)

I think Hussar's claim is not true some of the time, and not not true some of the time. 

Who cares why some old dude stopped buying something from a different company 20 years ago?  

What's important is what that guy wants today, and probably even more importantly, what his kids want today.


So I think the real question would be: Would the original red box effectively generate interest in WoTC's current market?

I don't have any studies saying yes or no, but I presume WoTC has done their homework on who their target audience is, and what they want.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 13, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> 1) Get distracted by something else you also like;
> 
> 5) Temporarily not have the time or space for the game;
> 
> 8) Date someone who doesn't approve of the game, or who takes all your attention from the game;



 In my case these three were pretty much one big reason why I dropped out of RPGs between 1e and 3e.

It was the Baldur's Gate series of video games that got me back into thinking about D&D, and then 3e came along & suddenly there were other people playing.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 13, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I think Hussar's claim is not true some of the time, and not not true some of the time.




Well, the point is that an absence of evidence is neither evidence pro or con.  Really, we can say nothing about how many people play Holmes Basic, AD&D 1e, etc., now, and the WotC "lapsed player" data is of no help in this regard.

I can speculate that there is life on a planet circling a distant star, but without any evidence upon which to base that opinion, the most we can be about it (rationally) is agnostic.  We simply do not know.

Any argument that comes from a position that assumes knowledge, such as "C'mon, life must exist on planet X, therefore extraterrestrial life exists" is a non-starter.  Extraterrestrial life may exist, but the argument itself has no evidenciary value.



> So I think the real question would be: Would the original red box effectively generate interest in WoTC's current market?
> 
> I don't have any studies saying yes or no, but I presume WoTC has done their homework on who their target audience is, and what they want.




I would hope that WotC did their research, and the trade dress of their product, as well as the ad (if it is a WotC ad), would seem to indicate that WotC does believe that the earlier D&D would generate interest, even if it is not what they want to sell, or if they believe that it will not sustain interest.

Moreover, even if WotC now thinks that the initial 4e release was a mistake, it is fairly obvious (to me at least) that pulling back now would be an even bigger mistake.

The 4e roll-out sucked.  The recent damage control has been excellent.  IMHO, anyway.  Essentials comes across as very reasonably priced.  Again, IMHO.

WotC should stay the course with 4e/Essentials for the next few years at least, and then produce a 5e that has greater backwards compatability.  IOW, someone's vision of what is best from all previous editions (OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e).  Again, IMHO.

What they should do immediately, if not sooner, is dump the delve format for adventures.  They could do so without seeming to be back-treading, and it would make it easier to create adventures with more reuse potential.  Again, IMHO.  YMMV.



RC


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 13, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Yeah I agree it wasn't designed for your consumption. It's designed for a completely new unexperienced person who has never even played D&D.
> 
> It's a great deal especially for say, a parent who's kid hears about D&D and just : "Has to has to has to have it I want it more then any thing its the only thing I'll ask for ever I sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar!"




This, coincidentally, is exactly the kind of customer the Starter Set can lose you forever. The people on a limited budget who save their pennies, buy the product you tell them to buy... And then discover you sold them a demo of the real game that they're selling separately.

I had this happen when I was a kid. Mayfair never got another penny of my money.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 14, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Moreover, even if WotC now thinks that the initial 4e release was a mistake, it is fairly obvious (to me at least) that pulling back now would be an even bigger mistake.
> 
> The 4e roll-out sucked.  The recent damage control has been excellent.  IMHO, anyway.  Essentials comes across as very reasonably priced.  Again, IMHO.




I agree... Even though whether it was deserved or not, it's obvious the roll out wasn't all happy unicorns and lollipops! 



> WotC should stay the course with 4e/Essentials for the next few years at least, and then produce a 5e that has greater backwards compatability.  IOW, someone's vision of what is best from all previous editions (OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e).  Again, IMHO.




While I agree they should stay the course, I get the feeling if you're looking for 5e you're out of luck. 

Seems they want to take D&D into the same territory as MTG and give it a somewhat small set of "core" rules with the other stuff layered on top. 

I don't think the Core will change for a long time. (At least not n large increments.)  Most of the changes we've seen (especially in essentials) have been to the top layer, not the base rules.



> What they should do immediately, if not sooner, is dump the delve format for adventures.  They could do so without seeming to be back-treading, and it would make it easier to create adventures with more reuse potential.  Again, IMHO.  YMMV.




This I don't disagree with. 

I don't really think it has as much an effect on re-use as you seem to... But I do find it kind of annoying.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 14, 2010)

RC said:
			
		

> The 4e roll-out sucked. The recent damage control has been excellent. IMHO, anyway. Essentials comes across as very reasonably priced. Again, IMHO.




Speaking of talking with no proof.  Why would you claim this?  Three printings of the core books in under two years?  Selling out your print run, not once, but twice equals a "sucked" roll out?

What criteria are you using for sucking?

Now, as far as older versions bringing back gamers, well, you are absolutely right, I have no proof.  But, I can point to the fact that after six years of OSRIC and various other OSR products, we haven't seen this massive upswing in people returning to the hobby.

I would also point to the fact that D&D was bleeding players until 3e came along.  It took a completely reworked game that slaughtered all sorts of sacred cows to get people back into the hobby.  Skills and Powers didn't get it done.  Red Box D&D didn't get it done.

Unless there is this massive population of gamers playing older versions of D&D hidden away somewhere, to me, lapsed gamer means someone who dropped out of the hobby.  Twenty million by WOTC's estimates.  RC, are you claiming that there are significant numbers of those who are still gaming?  Where are they?


----------



## billd91 (Oct 14, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I would also point to the fact that D&D was bleeding players until 3e came along.  It took a completely reworked game that slaughtered all sorts of sacred cows to get people back into the hobby.  Skills and Powers didn't get it done.  Red Box D&D didn't get it done.




Of course, TSR being unable to even get stuff to market for a while didn't exactly help D&D's numbers.
But exactly how many sacred cows do you count being killed in the 3e release? Frankly, I'm not seeing "all sorts".
And Red Box D&D didn't get it done? How do you think so many people got into the hobby in the first place? How do you think the D&D family of games had so many players to bleed 15 years later?


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 14, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Speaking of talking with no proof.  Why would you claim this?  Three printings of the core books in under two years?  Selling out your print run, not once, but twice equals a "sucked" roll out?




We've sold out our print run on City Supplement 1: Dweredell 192 times! It's incredible!

(It's also POD, so every print run consists of 1 copy. But there ya go. We're clearly 60x more successful than 4th Edition, right?)



> I would also point to the fact that D&D was bleeding players until 3e came along.  It took a completely reworked game that slaughtered all sorts of sacred cows to get people back into the hobby.  Skills and Powers didn't get it done.  Red Box D&D didn't get it done.




BECMI's red box went out of print in 1990. Trying to blame the fact that the game was bleeding players (citation needed) a decade later seems like a wee bit of a stretch to me. It's an even bigger stretch when you consider that the decline in D&D's sales began shortly after D&D stopped being available in a boxed set that wasn't a pay-to-preview product. IOW, it started immediately after BECMI's red box went away.

That may be correlation and not causation. But there's not even a correlation between BECMI's red box being available on the market and the player base for D&D declining. There's actually an anti-correlation.

I'm not even really sure what the point is you're trying to make. But at the moment you appear to be operating in a fact-free zone.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 14, 2010)

I love the idea that WotC purposefully sent as few copies of their stuff as possible to ensure they'd have bragging rights, which is far more important then, you know, making actual money.

Why?

So that they could shove it in the faces at nerds on the internet!  What could be more important, after all?!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 14, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I love the idea that WotC purposefully sent as few copies of their stuff as possible to ensure they'd have bragging rights, which is far more important then, you know, making actual money.
> 
> Why?
> 
> So that they could shove it in the faces at nerds on the internet!  What could be more important, after all?!



Also an interesting idea is that for some reason OD&D or the original Red Box would sell better and be more succesful in getting new players then the new game. Wizards of the Coast is producing a new game just because they can, not because it is a financially sound move. 



			
				bild91 said:
			
		

> But exactly how many sacred cows do you count being killed in the 3e release?



It seems to me it was a freaking lot, but people forget all this because they have played 3e for so long and many have set it to their new baseline.
Monsters and players use the exact same rule and get the same stat blocks? 
THAC0 to "always roll high"?
d20 for every resolution mechanic now, no more d% for special skilsl.
Skills for everyone? 
4d6 drop lowest and 25 point buy added to the game?
Unified XP tables for everyone?
Base Attack Bonus (and standardized at that?)
3 Saves.
9th level spells for Clerics?
Max HD at 1st level?
Damage vs large opponents?
... (to be continued by someone that doesn't just get the sacred cows from third parties)

Sure, you have adapted to 3.x and enjoyed what it did. You think all of these as good moves. But if someone was coming from the original Red Box and between kids, work and wife didn't play for 20 years, if he had come to 3.x he would have seen a lot of changes.

And I dare claim that most people that had 20 years or so not playing any type of D&D or RPG wouldn't care that it was different. It still evokes all the same feelings. You still fight Goblins and Kobolds with swords and magic missiles. The Rogue is still the stealthy guy dealing with traps and pick-pocketing.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 14, 2010)

PErsonally...I thought 3e slaughtered a LOT of sacred cows...

Big one being the effect of magic on the setting...Things like the ove to 3 saves I just consider a small shift that didn't affect much but the changes to magic? Hoo-boy...those were a doozy

We've done this before, but a 1e/2e setting is going to be VASTLY different than a 3e setting due to all the changes of magic...from limits on how much magic gets tossed around, to how much magic the PCs use etc...

People tend to equate the spells as being the same but frankly, that's a bad way of viewing...the entire underlying rules for magic got changed and there's no way a 3e setting would look like a 1e/2e setting.

Quite frankly, the 4e version of Knock "EFFCTS" on a setting is closer to what the 1e/2e version of "Knock" had on a setting than the 3e version even though the "TEXT" for the 3e version is closer to the 1e/2e spell.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 14, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> It seems to me it was a freaking lot, but people forget all this because they have played 3e for so long and many have set it to their new baseline.
> Monsters and players use the exact same rule and get the same stat blocks?
> THAC0 to "always roll high"?
> d20 for every resolution mechanic now, no more d% for special skilsl.
> ...




How many of these really count as killing sacred cows? Did putting PCs and monsters into a very similar structure really kill a sacred cow? Really?

Of your list, I'd probably only consider a few to be anything close to sacred cows:
THAC0
5 saves to 3
Different XP tables to unified table
Damage vs large
Rolling % for certain skills vs d20

Max HP for first level, for example, was a very common house rule already. All PCs already had expanded skills with the non-weapon proficiency system and add-on house rules for determining if anybody could climb a wall or move in a stealthy manner. Clerics already had some 9th level spells - they were just listed as 7th level spells on the cleric table while they were 9th level on the wizard table. Base attack bonus is part of the same change with THAC0 so you've listed it twice.

3e preserved far more sacred cows than it slaughtered. I'm just not seeing "all sorts of sacred cows" ending up as hamburger. I'm seeing a select few. Some of them may have had wide reaching implications, sure. But the amount of sacred hamburger, not so much.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 14, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Speaking of talking with no proof.  Why would you claim this?  Three printings of the core books in under two years?  Selling out your print run, not once, but twice equals a "sucked" roll out?
> 
> What criteria are you using for sucking?




My opinion, of course.  

Hence the "IMHO" and the use of a subjective criteria, rather than attempting to make a claim of objective fact.

The only "proof" you will ever be able to get of a subjective opinion is (1) the person stating the opinion, and/or (2) the person's behaviour either aligning with, or seemingly in contrast to, the opinion they state.



> Now, as far as older versions bringing back gamers, well, you are absolutely right, I have no proof.  But, I can point to the fact that after six years of OSRIC and various other OSR products, we haven't seen this massive upswing in people returning to the hobby.
> 
> I would also point to the fact that D&D was bleeding players until 3e came along.




See, apart from the uses of the words "we", "massive", and "bleeding" (which have subjective values), here you are making a claim about an objective phenomenon without any evidence to back it up.

We can look at TSR's sales figures, and we can determine whether or not there was a loss of sales.  Yet, we are told that TSR sunk a lot of money in non-D&D products, and did massive print overruns, so we have no firm evidence that TSR's financial troubles were due to flagging sales of core products.  The initial reports from WotC about TSR's finances were countered by at least one TSR insider at the time, and the individual responsible for WotC's report has since lost some credibility (IMHO).

Yes, WotC says that their recent survey shows that there are many lapsed gamers.  No, WotC's survey does not define lapsed gamers as people who are no longer playing older products, but rather people who are not buying WotC products now.  According to the WotC survey, I am a lapsed player.  I can assure you that I still play rpgs.

The WotC survey could be an indicator that 20 million people have simply dropped the hobby, or could be an indicator that 20 million people chose to play other games.  Including older versions of D&D.  WotC doesn't tell us.  Anything we infer from the data....*perhaps* other than that WotC is "bleeding players" and is doing damage control.....is speculation at best.  And I am not even willing to credit that "perhaps" as being necessarily accurate.

Thankfully, I don't need to know that there are 20 million players of older games out there, or where they are, to know that you don't know that there are not.  Nor does saying that you do not know there are not imply that I know that there are.  Neither one of us knows anything related to the question.

I am simply aware that I know nothing related to the question, and am pointing out that, despite your protestation, you are in the same boat.  You may feel that you are right.....you may even be right.....but you have no means to know if that feeling is correct, _*even if it is*_.  

We simply lack the necessary data.


RC


----------



## Mallus (Oct 14, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> This, coincidentally, is exactly the kind of customer the Starter Set can lose you forever. The people on a limited budget who save their pennies, buy the product you tell them to buy.



You mean the people who are ultimately irrelevant to your bottom line because they don't have enough disposable income to regularly purchase your (niche) entertainment products? Those people? 

re: the commercial... I loved it. While the individual images might hold a special appeal to people who recognize their source (note: I <heart> the grell), overall the ad reads really contemporary to me, and "retro" in a positive way.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 14, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Which video games have changed? Do you mean that I can pick up a video game now that has exactly the same title as one from 25 years ago, and it will be significantly different? I thought that they prominently changed the names (i.e., "Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time") in order to signify that it was a new game. I was also under the impression that the graphics were prominently changed in order to demonstrate the same thing. For example, I have never seen a game called "Pong" using images from earlier "Pong" being used to sell a radically new "Pong". Perhaps, though, I'm out of the loop on developments in Pong and Centipede.




If you want an example of a game that's changed over time although slowly, try Monopoly.  For a long period they took the auction rules out of the game if you didn't want to buy a property (which made the game even worse).  These days they also have a "Speed Dice" which speeds things up massively (a huge boon to the game).

But I absolutely would expect different editions to play differently.  Especially of a game that had evolving design at the time - as Dungeons and Dragons always has.



> I just wish it was more clearly differentiated in its trade dress/advertising from the earlier Red Box.




You seem to be in a tiny minority here.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 14, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> You seem to be in a tiny minority here.




I remember when they first announced it, and showed it with the original "new" art people said they wished it had the Elmore art... I think that actually prompted WoTC to put the old Elmore art on there as a gift kind of...

So it just goes to show... no matter what you try to do as a nice thing for your fans someone will tell you how it's ruining your hobby. 

This new art is terrible retro art is better- you should use the retro art!

Ok here is the retro art...

BLARG! How could you ever think to use the retro art- that will just confuse everyone and destroy D&D! Where did you ever get such a dumb idea!!!


Again proving what we learned from super advanced 80s style AI in War Games  remains true about the RPG industry...

The only way to not piss off gamers is to not make gaming products.

Time to go play chess.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 14, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> If you want an example of a game that's changed over time although slowly, try Monopoly.




Really?  I didn't know that.  What is a "Speed Dice"?



> You seem to be in a tiny minority here.




Well, that wouldn't be the first time, nor would it be the last time.  There is no "right" or "wrong" with subjective criteria, of course.



Scribble said:


> I remember when they first announced it, and showed it with the original "new" art people said they wished it had the Elmore art... I think that actually prompted WoTC to put the old Elmore art on there as a gift kind of...
> 
> So it just goes to show... no matter what you try to do as a nice thing for your fans someone will tell you how it's ruining your hobby.




However did you jump from "I just wish it was more clearly differentiated in its trade dress/advertising from the earlier Red Box." to "BLARG! How could you ever think to use the retro art- that will just confuse everyone and destroy D&D! Where did you ever get such a dumb idea!!!"?!?

Why the ad hominem?  After all, didn't I also say that I thought it was a good value on average, and a step in the right direction?

But that said, I wouldn't mind if they produced something using _*all*_ retro art -- interior and exterior.....especially if it was a Black Box set instead of a Red Box.  If retro is cool enough to use as advertising, retro is cool enough to use throughout the project!  

(I realize that the audience that such a thing would appeal to is limited, and that the print run would therefore be too limited to probably be of value to WotC.  But a gamer can dream.

It would be interesting, to me at least, to see exactly how much the art direction has actually influenced my feelings about the ruleset.)


RC


----------



## Nifft (Oct 14, 2010)

Scribble said:


> So it just goes to show... no matter what you try to do as a nice thing for your fans someone will tell you how it's ruining your hobby.



 "Fans ruin hobbies."

The perfectly unimpeachable hobby is therefore one with no fans!



Scribble said:


> The only way to not piss off gamers is to not make gaming products.



 ... or perhaps one with no products?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Imperialus (Oct 14, 2010)

Orius said:


> Yup, I've been thinking the same thing.  I can't help but think this thing shrieks "uncool".  The old art or whatever it is comes off as dorky to me, though that might be because I'm so used to being in an un-nerdy community that it has me very deep in the so-called "RPG closet".  And while I've only seen the commercial with the sound off, I'm pretty sure kids today are not into metal at all.




So I'm a teacher.  Today I have seen 2 Iron Maiden T-shirts, and a Twisted Sister T-Shirt.  Grade 10-12, upper middle class public school.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 14, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> However did you jump from "I just wish it was more clearly differentiated in its trade dress/advertising from the earlier Red Box." to "BLARG! How could you ever think to use the retro art- that will just confuse everyone and destroy D&D! Where did you ever get such a dumb idea!!!"?!?




I didn't. 

It was intended mostly as a joke- just to highlight the damned if you do, damned if you don't nature of our hobby.  My apologies if it came across wrong. 



> Why the ad hominem?  After all, didn't I also say that I thought it was a good value on average, and a step in the right direction?




Notice I didn't say "Raven Says..."   Wasn't really intended to be anything against you, more a comment on gamers at large, so again I apologize if it came across wrong.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 14, 2010)

Cool then, Scribble.  I should have taken my own advice and given your post the best possible reading.

Sorry I didn't.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Oct 15, 2010)

RC said:
			
		

> so we have no firm evidence that TSR's financial troubles were due to flagging sales of core products.




Original Unearthed Arcana anyone?

Now we have BOTE claiming that there wasn't a drop in the number of players throughout the TSR era.  Do I have citations?  Well, do I really need any?  Good grief, this is about as close to a commonly accepted fact that we have about that period.  Gaming population spiked in the very early 80's and then declined every year after that until 3e came along and brought the numbers back up.

So, yeah, Red Box brought lots of people into the hobby.  But not as many as were leaving the hobby.  If it was, then the gaming population would have been constantly growing no?

But, unless I'm really out in left field here, playing in a "fact free zone", the gaming population shrank pretty much constantly year on year until about 2000.  

So, if the Red Box wasn't enough back then to bring in enough new gamers to grow the hobby, why on earth would it be good enough NOW?

Did it slow the tide?  Quite probably.  Lots of people did come into the hobby that way.  But, the fact still remains that while it might have brought in lots of gamers, it didn't grow the hobby enough to stem the tide of those leaving the hobby.

So, why the belief that doing so now would start growing the hobby?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 15, 2010)

(Shrug)

That the earth is flat was once a commonly believed "fact"; didn't make it true.

I require meeting a standard of evidence to think I know something.

YMMV.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Oct 15, 2010)

Really?  This is your argument?  That the gaming population has either remained static or actually grown throughout the history of the hobby?  

I'm a little taken aback to be honest.  I thought that this was one point where pretty much everyone agreed.  The gaming population (particularly D&D gaming) spiked around 1982 (ish) and then fell pretty much year on year, with perhaps a bit of a bump around 1990 with the advent of Vampire and White Wolf, until the release of d20 in 2000 (ish).

At least, that's always been my understanding.  What have you seen that disagrees with that?


----------



## Stormonu (Oct 15, 2010)

Just some information to throw out, this is summarized from "The History of TSR" from the Silver Anniversary set:

1978-1982  TSR sales double every year (sometimes twice in a year).  In 1982, TSR rakes in $20M sales
1983-1986 TSR begins its biannual layoff to keep multi-million $$ debt from sinking the company
1987 TSR posts its first profit of $1M since 1983.
1987-1994 TSR continues to float.
1995+ TSR starts to wither

Clearly, a lot of steam was lost after 1982.  Though obviously the company made some horrible decisions in 1983, sales apparently never got back up to the boom back in '82.

I don't have any information about how 3E fared compared to those previous years, but from my own personal experience, the first two years of 3E was the first time since about '95 or '96 I had even seen a D&D game at our local Con (White Wolf's Vampire game wounded D&D down here - making those who played D&D pariahs, then once MtG started gathering speed, D&D up and died until 3E.  Once 3.5 came out, I haven't seen a D&D game at our local Cons since then).


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 15, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Really?  I didn't know that.  What is a "Speed Dice"?




He seems to be fundamentally incorrect. The core rules of _Monopoly_ remain unchanged. Recent editions, however, have incorporated optional rules for Speed Dice: Speed Die | Monopoly | BoardGameGeek


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 15, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Now we have BOTE claiming that there wasn't a drop in the number of players throughout the TSR era.




Uh... No. I said exactly the opposite of that. (Unless you're claiming that the TSR era ended in 1990.)

You seem to be nestling comfortably into your fact-free zone.



Mallus said:


> You mean the people who are ultimately irrelevant  to your bottom line because they don't have enough disposable income to  regularly purchase your (niche) entertainment products?




There are so many things wrong with this sentiment I don't even know where to start. But how about with this: Over the past 20 years I have spent more than $40,000 on roleplaying games. A significant percentage of that has gone into the pockets of TSR and WotC.

I started as a 12 year old kid saving up his allowance to buy the _Basic Set_.

The idea that only rich kids should get to play D&D is absurd. Your implication that you should grab $20 off 'em as you kick them out the door is offensive.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 15, 2010)

billd91 said:


> 3e preserved far more sacred cows than it slaughtered. I'm just not seeing "all sorts of sacred cows" ending up as hamburger. I'm seeing a select few. Some of them may have had wide reaching implications, sure. But the amount of sacred hamburger, not so much.




No it did not.

3e FUNDAMENTALLY changed how the gameworld operated.

Pre 3e, one did not have to consider the effect of magic on a setting due to how RARE magic was...Not just spellcasters but in terms of actual spells.

The fact that in 1e/2e, a 16 int wizard only KNEW 11 spells per level, that even the NAME-level wizard a.k.a one in the entire kingdom only could cast  3 2nd level spells per level (and you couldn't use higher slots for lower level spells), that a 16th int only gave you a 70% chance to learn spells, that you even needed to be 9th level to even attempt to create the weakest magic items (potions and scrolls) AND that you can actually purchase magical items where before you could only find magical items and the tables were slanted towards weapons and armours that the wizard couldn't use? Let's not even get into the change into spells becoming less dangerous for wizards, easier to use in combat and actually becoming harder to resist as they levelled up.

And you consider this a small change?

The change in the rules of magic CREATED the Batman wizard, an archtype simply unheard of in 1e/2e

The 4e world is MUCH closer in feel IMO to a 1e/2e world than the 3e world.

EDIT: Metal band like Twisted Sister and Metallica are "cool" once again among the 16 and under crowd...

Now if this was the 90s...then I'd say Metal was dead...


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 15, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> He seems to be fundamentally incorrect. The core rules of _Monopoly_ remain unchanged. Recent editions, however, have incorporated optional rules for Speed Dice: Speed Die | Monopoly | BoardGameGeek




Bidding was taken out for about a 20 year period.  And the speed die is now, I believe, the default rather than the optional rule in new Monopoly sets - and mandated in tournament play.  Both significantly change the way the game works.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 15, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Really?  This is your argument?  That the gaming population has either remained static or actually grown throughout the history of the hobby?





You fail to understand what I am saying.

I am not arguing that your conclusion is wrong.  I am specifically arguing that I cannot know whether your conclusion is right or wrong, and neither can you, unless there is some evidence that you have not put forward.

An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  

Saying that there is no evidence for X does not mean not-X must be true.  It means that, barring evidence, you cannot know if X or not-X is true.  

The only rational thing you can do is accept that you do not know, await further information, and not base your plans or your self-image on the idea that either X or not-X is true.  The last (not basing your plans or self-image on an unknown foundation) is simply because either (1) you will dismiss information that appears to contradict you, in order to retain those plans/self-image, or (2) you stand a good chance of seriously mis-planning or having your self-image destroyed.

My argument is not that there are droves of earlier edition players.  My argument is not that there are not droves of earlier edition players.  My argument is that we do not know how many earlier edition players there are, or how the numbers of the same correlate to what they did when TSR went under.  

Any arguments that are based upon a presumption that we do know automatically fail as a result.  Again, _*the conclusion of an argument that fails may still be true*_, but we do not know it to be true, nor can we infer it to be true on the basis of the argument.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 15, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> Just some information to throw out, this is summarized from "The History of TSR" from the Silver Anniversary set:
> 
> 1978-1982  TSR sales double every year (sometimes twice in a year).  In 1982, TSR rakes in $20M sales
> 1983-1986 TSR begins its biannual layoff to keep multi-million $$ debt from sinking the company
> ...





There are two problems with using this as evidence to support Hussar's claim.

(1)  After 1982, there is no actual sales information supplied.  Depending upon costs, it is quite possible to have rising sales and still fall deeper into debt.

(2)  It fails to seperate product lines.  TSR published a lot of material for Buck Rogers, for example, as well as Spellfire, and if sales were flagging for those products, one might erroneously conclude that they were also flagging for the core D&D products.  Likewise, TSR produced a lot of secondary D&D products which may, or may not, have sold well, and a failure of HR1 Vikings to sell well should not be taken as evidence that D&D itself was not popular.

Again, we do not know, and the rational thing is to accept that we do not know.  I mean, is that really so hard to do?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 15, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Bidding was taken out for about a 20 year period.  And the speed die is now, I believe, the default rather than the optional rule in new Monopoly sets - and mandated in tournament play.  Both significantly change the way the game works.




Apparently the Speed Die came in in 2007, according to the wiki.  Interesting; I didn't know that.  What is your source for bidding being taken out for a 20 year period?

I played Monopoly as a kid; I've played it with my kids.  Obviously, I haven't picked up a set since 2007, or I would presumably have been aware of the Speed Die.  I am not aware of any game play changes to the sets I've played (although perhaps from not re-reading the rules).  (Obviously, Star Wars Monopoly renamed the properties, etc., but the game itself plays exactly the same IME.)


RC


----------



## Hussar (Oct 15, 2010)

Heh, playing Monopoly and not reading the rules... Isn't that the way we're supposed to play.  

You're right of course, btw, there is no hard data regarding the actual numbers of gamers during that period.  I'm going by what was general opinion of the time - the gamer pop spiked around 82 then tailed off sharply for the next couple of years and then, with a few upticks like when Vampire came out, continued to dwindle until the 3e era.

I know that Gary Gygax said that the Unearthed Arcana was pushed out the door very quickly because of flagging sales, which is why I mentioned that.  The Buck Rogers and Spellfire stuff doesn't really come into the picture at all in the 80's, that wasn't the cause of the financial difficulties as I recall.

Wasn't Spellfire a 90's thing?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 15, 2010)

I am not sure when Buck Rogers came out.  Spellfire was the 90s; I think you're right.  But the specific games don't matter; TSR has always had more than D&D on the go.

It is hard to actually parse out what happened with TSR because we don't have anyone credible telling us what had occurred.  Even the earlier statements made when WotC took over have some serious shadows cast over them.....and were contradicted by at least one TSR insider at the time.  Too many egos, and too much self-interest in how things looked, are involved.

The odds are that we will never know.....apart from a rather generic "mismanagement of assets".


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 15, 2010)

Anecdotally, I know people who, back in the late 3.5 days, asked me to run a D&D game for them.....and were not aware of 3e.  They expected 2e (original, not Option).  I had a hell of a time explaining that THAC0 was no more.



RC


----------



## Rel (Oct 15, 2010)

This is the part where I remind the participants in the thread to be kind to one another.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 15, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Apparently the Speed Die came in in 2007, according to the wiki. Interesting; I didn't know that. What is your source for bidding being taken out for a 20 year period?




My source for it having been taken out in at least some printings is my own eyes.  The 20 year period is anecdotal.



> (although perhaps from not re-reading the rules)




Mine's the only family I've ever heard of where we played strictly by the rules and actually read them.  It definitely beats the "Money for free parking" variants.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 15, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> No it did not.
> 
> 3e FUNDAMENTALLY changed how the gameworld operated.
> 
> ...




It's not necessarily a question of small or large changes. Not all changes, no matter the size, are killing sacred cows. For some thing to be a sacred cow in the first place, it really has to have some special reverence. That's why I'd consider transforming the direction of the armor classes killing a sacred cow - but a worthwhile one because of its benefits.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 15, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> My source for it having been taken out in at least some printings is my own eyes.  The 20 year period is anecdotal.




Fair enough.  I guess I don't normally wear out games as fast as you do!  


RC


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 16, 2010)

Hussar said:


> You're right of course, btw, there is no hard data regarding the actual numbers of gamers during that period.




Random fact injection: Print Run

Dragon Magazine's circulation was 80,000 in '82, climbed to 120,000 in '83, and then 125,000 in '84. In '92, it was still sitting at 125,000.

The 1E Fiend Folio (copyright 1981) sold 190,000 copies. By contrast, first-year release sales for hardcover accessories in '92 were 170,000 copies.

The Dragon Magazine numbers are highly suggestive that the market had _not_ peaked in '82. By '84 it may have (hard to say without figures from '85 thru '92), but what's definitely missing here is any sort of "sharp tail-off". What the limited numbers we have at our disposal seem to indicate is that the population of gamers who were actively engaged consumers in the gaming industry was essentially stable throughout the '80s and into the early '90s.

(Note: That page includes a letter from an anonymous WotC employee claiming TSR sold 1,000,000 Basic Sets in 1989. Erik Mona recently posted here on ENWorld to suggest that figure is hyper-inflated. Bearing that in mind, I'm ignoring all of the statistics from that letter.)


----------



## Hussar (Oct 16, 2010)

The problem with any of the TSR related stats is they were frequently, umm, creative.  

Considering that Paizo Dungeon and Dragon were running about 50000 copies per month, combined, there had to be some tailing off somewhere along the lines.  Now that number I know is true because it gets reported in the pages of the magazines every year.

Hey, maybe there never has been a large tail off.  But, my question is, where did they all go?  Did they all stop buying all of a sudden, at the same time?  Why is there no huge online presence of gamers who have been gaming for twenty or thirty years?  

Or, to ask another question, if there is this huge population of gamers that never dropped out of the hobby, why is 3e credited with bringing back so many gamers?  After all, if the gaming population was fairly static, they never left.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 17, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Considering that Paizo Dungeon and Dragon were running about 50000 copies per month, combined, there had to be some tailing off somewhere along the lines.  Now that number I know is true because it gets reported in the pages of the magazines every year.




You realize there's a 10 year gap between 1992 and Paizo publishing the magazines right?

This is the second time you've done this. First you tried to blame the Mentzer red box (which ceased publication in 1991) for the late-'90s decline of TSR. Now you're trying to pretend that a collapse you originally cited to 1982 is being supported by numbers you're pulling from 2002+ because there "had to be some tailing off somewhere along the lines".

Quickly skimming through the thread again, I can see no one claiming that D&D has never suffered a loss of players. So it seems like you're whacking away at a strawman there.

I'm also unclear on what your point is supposed to be at this point. You started out by arguing that the Mentzer red box was a failure because it failed to retain players, but you really don't seem to have explanation for how that's supposed to connect with supposed market drop-off a decade after the Mentzer red box was out of print.

AFAICT, from the limited information we have:

(1) D&D experienced explosive growth from roughly 1978-1983.

(2) The growth reached a plateau in 1982-1983, but was not followed by a dramatic collapse of the D&D market. In fact, the total size of the market seems to have been largely unchanged between 1983 and 1992.

(3) During the 1990s, the size of the D&D market declined. It's unclear how large this decline was.

(4) With the release of 3E, the size of the D&D market increased. It's unclear how large this increase was.

Couple of final notes:

The post-'83 plateauing of the market probably meant that fewer core rulebooks were being  sold. If TSR was projecting (as so many young businesses do) that the explosive success of the past 3-4 years was going to continue, they likely were beginning to run into cash flow problems, which would match the reports of UA being rushed out the door. (But given the reputed success of the Mentzer Basic Set as the most  successful rulebook of D&D ever published -- a claim which has few  numbers attached to it, but has been supported directly or indirectly by  a number of TSR and WotC employees -- sales can't have completely  bottomed out, either, even taking the product's 8 year longevity into  account.)

While I think the steady subscription rate of Dragon Magazine from '83 to '92 pretty much negates any claim that the D&D market collapsed during that time period, I don't think you can extend that logic to conclude that a collapse of Dragon's subscription numbers post-1992 necessarily indicate that the D&D market as a whole was collapsing. 

First, during the '80s Dragon Magazine was the primary source of official source material for the game. As AD&D2 ramped up the supplement treadmill in the '90s, this ceased to be true. And it became even less true post-2000 with the D20 boom. Thus a major selling point of the magazine has become significantly diluted over the past 20 years.

Second, the effect of the internet on magazine subscriptions in general has been catastrophic. Trying to separate out the effect of D&D's market shrinking from the effect of the magazine market in general collapsing is going to be difficult or impossible.

Basically, in comparing subscription numbers in 1983 to subscription numbers in 1992 you're basically comparing apples-to-apples. In comparing subscription numbers in 1992 to 2002 or 2008, you're comparing apples-to-oranges.


----------



## steeldragons (Oct 17, 2010)

Ok...so..."commercial" at the beginning of this thread...love it? hate it?

Who cares at this point?

6,660 view (not kidding) and 220 replies...that latter several pages of which seem to have nothing to do with the origin of the thread.

So, can we, as a community...as a civilized group of mature persons...move on?

Just wondering...think it might be nice.
--SD


----------



## Maggan (Oct 17, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> While I think the steady subscription rate of Dragon Magazine from '83 to '92 pretty much negates any claim that the D&D market collapsed during that time period, I don't think you can extend that logic to conclude that a collapse of Dragon's subscription numbers post-1992 necessarily indicate that the D&D market as a whole was collapsing.




To further complicate things, "circulation" and "subscriptions" are not the same thing. A magazine being circulated in 100 000 copies means that 100 000 (or so) copies are sent out to subscribers and shops. That's the "circulation" part of the whole thing. The ones sent to subscribers are prepaid, good stuff for a company. That's the "subscription" part of the whole thing.

The ones sent to shops are a gamble (more or less informed). The ones not sold are returned for pulping. And there are lots of magazines returned every month.

Without knowing how big the subscription part of the circulation number is, it is impossible to say anything about the number of subscribers. Basically, a circulation of 100 000 can mean 100 000 subscribers or 0 subscribers.

As always, print runs and circulation have a limited meaning. It's sell through and subscriptions that are the meat of the matter. And I think, although I might be wrong, that all the numbers for Dragon and Dungeon I have seen have been for "circulation" and not "subscriptions".

Sure, a large circulation often means a magazine has a large subscriber base, but this need not be a fact due to differing publishing models; wholly ad supported magazines might have a huge circulation but few subscribers, and a company can work towards a huge circulation to offset a dramatic loss of subscribers and hoping to pull people in again (not a very good long term strategy), to name just two different situations.

My guess is that the number of gamers declined during the late 80's, but that the industry continued to operate on the assumption/hope that it would be static or increasing, which in turn led to print runs that were too high, which took a toll on the companies, which in early to mid 90's caught up with them and brought many to their knees. I base this on how the companies I worked for during that time operated, but I have no clear numbers to back that up.

As I mentioned, in the late 80's and early 90's Sweden saw a dramatic drop off of RPG gamers, and from what I've read and observed, I believe that to be true for the rest of the world as well.

EDIT: so when a company enthusiastically cites "circulation", keep in mind that it is basically the same as citing e.g. downloads or print runs. A nice number to use in that company's marketing, no more, no less.

/M


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 20, 2010)

FWIW, there is a thread on Dragonsfoot right now where a fellow in Australia thought they were a re-release on the Metzner Red Box.


----------



## wedgeski (Oct 20, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> (Note: That page includes a letter from an anonymous WotC employee claiming TSR sold 1,000,000 Basic Sets in 1989. Erik Mona recently posted here on ENWorld to suggest that figure is hyper-inflated. Bearing that in mind, I'm ignoring all of the statistics from that letter.)



Ah good. I'd lost track of that thread but remember expressing my shock that the red box could be selling that kind of volume so late in its lifetime. Nice to be able to Tippex over that particular number in my mental lexicon.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Oct 20, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> WotC's survey does not define lapsed gamers as people who are no longer playing older products, but rather people who are not buying WotC products now.




This is not true. At least, it's not true of the data I worked with when I was the guy making the decisions. Given that the numbers currently bandied about are directionally similar to those I dealt with, I'd say it's not true now.

When I talked about "lapsed players," I was talking about people who didn't play at all. (Conversely, when I talked about "active players," that referred to people who did play, regardless of edition.)

(The truth is, if "active" meant "buying," the number of "players" would be way lower than it actually is. Even within the current edition, for every player who buys regularly there are several who don't. Look around your own gaming group; you'll probably see it there.)


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 20, 2010)

Maggan said:


> To further complicate things, "circulation" and "subscriptions" are not the same thing. A magazine being circulated in 100 000 copies means that 100 000 (or so) copies are sent out to subscribers and shops. That's the "circulation" part of the whole thing. The ones sent to subscribers are prepaid, good stuff for a company. That's the "subscription" part of the whole thing.




If I'm not mistaken, those numbers should be available somewhere. IIRC, any periodical sent US second class mail was required once a year to publish the break-down of how many issues were being printed and where they were going to, how many to subscribers, how many to shops, how many were given away, etc. I can't find it on the Dragon Magazine CDs, though I don't know that I'm looking in the right places.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 21, 2010)

CharlesRyan said:


> This is not true. At least, it's not true of the data I worked with when I was the guy making the decisions. Given that the numbers currently bandied about are directionally similar to those I dealt with, I'd say it's not true now.
> 
> When I talked about "lapsed players," I was talking about people who didn't play at all. (Conversely, when I talked about "active players," that referred to people who did play, regardless of edition.)
> 
> (The truth is, if "active" meant "buying," the number of "players" would be way lower than it actually is. Even within the current edition, for every player who buys regularly there are several who don't. Look around your own gaming group; you'll probably see it there.)




Charles,

Thanks for the info!  An insider view is always useful when trying to parse information.  

Out of curiosity, though, would I be considered a lapsed player under the data you worked with?  I am working on/playtesting an SRD-based game (sort of a fusion between retro-clones and modern rulesets), but am not playing any official form of D&D.

What if I was playing WFRPG or Traveller?

Your answers will help me to make sense of the WotC data, and are appreciated!

RC


----------



## CharlesRyan (Oct 21, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Out of curiosity, though, would I be considered a lapsed player under the data you worked with?




If you self-identify as a person who currently plays D&D, you'd show up as an active player. You may _also_ have been asked which edition you play and how often you play and what other games you play (depending on the study and what we were trying to drill down to), but generally our top-line "X.X million people play D&D" numbers were based on the answer to that broadest question.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 21, 2010)

Thank you, Sir.  You are a gentleman indeed.


----------



## Stormonu (Oct 22, 2010)

prosfilaes said:


> If I'm not mistaken, those numbers should be available somewhere. IIRC, any periodical sent US second class mail was required once a year to publish the break-down of how many issues were being printed and where they were going to, how many to subscribers, how many to shops, how many were given away, etc. I can't find it on the Dragon Magazine CDs, though I don't know that I'm looking in the right places.




I remember seeing those blurbs as well; seem to recall they came up once yearly, but I can't remember which month (seems like it would be December, January, June or July).


----------



## Orius (Nov 14, 2010)

It looks like there's another new ad.  Or at least I guess it's new, I haven't seen it before on Hulu.  It's similar in style to the first ad, but the art looks like it's early 2e (I'm not looking for it on YouTube, so screencaps):







I'm almost certain this is from the Wizard's Handbook.  






This has got to be from Spelljammer.  It's being chased by a bunch of ships that are probably neogi vessels.






And that hobgoblin is from a full page black and white illo that was in at least the Complete Book of Humanoids, but I think it was recycled a few times in the 90s.


----------



## buddhafrog (Nov 15, 2010)

Who can find a link to this ad?  It shouldn't be difficult but my 15 min search rolled a critical failure.  XP rewards guaranteed.


----------



## Nikosandros (Nov 15, 2010)

I haven't seen the new ad, but it seems that the material is taken form the same fan video that was used for the first ad.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUOSsQlV2Qw&feature=related]YouTube - D&D World of Adventure[/ame]


----------



## avin (Nov 15, 2010)

HAHAHA, just watched this... what's the point? Appealing some heavy metal fans over Wotc?

Horrible. Horrible.


----------



## Orius (Nov 16, 2010)

Nikosandros said:


> I haven't seen the new ad, but it seems that the material is taken form the same fan video that was used for the first ad.




Yup, looks like WotC is using pieces of the contest winner for their ads.  This one is basically 1:17 - 1:37, 2:05 - 2:34 of the original.  Not quite that long, but that's where the segments come from.

Lots of art from the 2e Complete Handbook series there too.  I recognized pieces from Fighter's, Bard's, and Ranger's in addition to what I mentioned above.  

I wonder if the first ad was designed to grab the attention of 1e/BECMI players, while this one is aimed towards people like me who started with 2e?


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Nov 16, 2010)

avin said:


> HAHAHA, just watched this... what's the point? Appealing some heavy metal fans over Wotc?
> 
> Horrible. Horrible.




In the 80s, D&D and heavy metal were like butter and bread, IMHO. God, i'd really forgotten how METAL it was. Sad that this influence has diminished so much.

Still, the videos need more Bolt Thrower.

EDIT: and those two guys at the start with the cheesy clothing: aren't they from that incredibly terrrible boardgame full-motion movie ad TSR produced? Anybody remember what that was called? God, it approached the Mystara CD products in brain-killing cheese.


----------

