Quote from: Cranewings;412985I don't give a rats ass about proper vocabulary. If everyone is using the wrong words according to you, but we know what it means, it is just slang.

Get up to speed or get out.

Dude, maybe if you gave a rats ass about vocabulary you would see how confusing this thread is.

It's really not that complicated.

Do you broadly care about D&D as a product brand (i.e., you would support it if they released a 5th edition that was a checkers game because it has the words Dungeons & Dragons stamped on the checkers and hey the BRAND MUST GO ON), do you broadly care about D&D as the D&D game (a game of classes, levels, hit points, dungeon crawls, etc.), or do you care specifically about an iteration of the D&D rules (classes represented a specific way, spells work a specific way, the game was authored by a specific person or persons).

I'm not trying to play word games.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;412993It's really not that complicated.

Do you broadly care about D&D as a product brand (i.e., you would support it if they released a 5th edition that was a checkers game because it has the words Dungeons & Dragons stamped on the checkers and hey the BRAND MUST GO ON), do you broadly care about D&D as the D&D game (a game of classes, levels, hit points, dungeon crawls, etc.), or do you care specifically about an iteration of the D&D rules (classes represented a specific way, spells work a specific way, the game was authored by a specific person or persons).

I'm not trying to play word games.

QuoteDo you broadly care about D&D as a product brand

No, i dont care at all, because I dont purchase products based on brand names.

Quotedo you broadly care about D&D as the D&D game

D&D is a brand name not a game, but i think you mean, the game rules presented in D&D products.
I do care about the rules, but i dont associate the rules with a brand name.

Quotedo you care specifically about an iteration of the D&D rules

Agian, I do care about the rules, though I dont care about the source (iteration), only the rules specific usefulness in the game im playing.

So i think its #2 (the game) i care more about.
But to me, those rules are more closely related to a role-playing game, then a brand name.


Maybe that clears it up.

There is no "D&D Game" like there is a brand or a version.
Which, paradoxically, makes the Game by far the most important thing.

RPGPundit

My enjoyment of a game determines my customer loyalty.   For me, OD&D and 4e are great games so I buy product for those games.

I will buy the D&D 5e corebooks because I enjoy D&D and I want to see where new minds take old ideas.   Whether I buy any 5e books beyond the core will be determined by my enjoyment of 5e.

I'm not a fan of .5 editions.  2e, 3.5 and Essentials isn't meaningfully different enough to be worth a purchase.

Quote from: ggroy;412964Indeed.

Even the d20 tabletop rpg adaptations of "World of Warcraft" and "Everquest" fell flat and quietly faded away from sight.  The WoW and EQ brand name "extensions" were simply not good enough to compete in the tabletop rpg business dominated by the "Dungeons and Dragons" brand name.

I bought an old copy of the WoW RPG Second Edition, and it is simply a bad RPG. The WoW world is built with a MMORPG in mind, and it is artificially structured so to conform with the MMORPG's needs (a few cities-key villages to serve as a operations base for the PC, "different level" zones (read: in a low level zone a tiger is a 6th level monster, in a 40+ level zone the same tiger is a 50 level monster - pity that the necromantic Dread Lord of the previous mid-level area was a 30 level mage, and so on).

The best way to play WoW pen-n-paper would be play the MMORPG and use the best ideas/vistas (some of them are really cool, even if I don't like WoW that much) in your campaign. No need for a stale "sourcebook" that copies&pastes the game backstory found in its manuals with some descriptions of places written in real time while a guy is playing the game. And places like WoWWiki even give you all the fluff for free.

Quote from: Reckall;413158I bought an old copy of the WoW RPG Second Edition, and it is simply a bad RPG.

It looks like a cut and paste job from the 3.5E SRD.  Most likely it was rushed to cash in on the popularity of WoW.

WoW RPG?

I highly recommend J Arcane's Drums of War
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17909

Quote from: thedungeondelver;412993It's really not that complicated.

Nor it is that simple.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;412993Do you broadly care about D&D as a product brand (i.e., you would support it if they released a 5th edition that was a checkers game because it has the words Dungeons & Dragons stamped on the checkers and hey the BRAND MUST GO ON), do you broadly care about D&D as the D&D game (a game of classes, levels, hit points, dungeon crawls, etc.), or do you care specifically about an iteration of the D&D rules (classes represented a specific way, spells work a specific way, the game was authored by a specific person or persons).

What not being mentioned are the intangibles. The most important of which is the social network that comes with the D&D Brand. That is the real driver not the "brand" but the social network that stands behind.

The brand is short hand for "I can find players to play with and expect readily available books of a certain quality." This give the D&D name it's value and as long it is attached to a fantasy roleplaying it will retain some value.

Now there are limits. If wizard's tried to shift the genre or shift the fundamental game (like to checkers) it would effectively destroy the brand. As it is the shift to 4e was probably more harmful than good. They could have adapted the 3e rules to achieve many of the same design goals.

Thanks to the open game license, older editions of D&D can rebuild their social networks with support behind them. Pathfinder, and the OSR are current examples.

QuoteDo you broadly care about D&D as a product brand (i.e., you would support it if they released a 5th edition that was a checkers game because it has the words Dungeons & Dragons stamped on the checkers and hey the BRAND MUST GO ON)

I care about the brand as it is linked to the industry's flagship, and as such, impacts the wider hobby in any number of ways.

Quotedo you broadly care about D&D as the D&D game (a game of classes, levels, hit points, dungeon crawls, etc.)

Yes, as this is directly part of what I enjoy in the game, i.e. the actual game play, what I was talking about earlier: the moment spent together, the game we're playing.

Quotedo you care specifically about an iteration of the D&D rules (classes represented a specific way, spells work a specific way, the game was authored by a specific person or persons)

Yes. I care about OD&D, AD&D, 3rd edition, and D&D Essentials, each in their own way.

:hmm:...the...game? or the idea behind it.
1ed. is my fave and I associate D&D with creativity,good times and daring deeds. I may be prompted to look at an item because of the brandname but not just buy it outright...
Supported/played many sessions of 2ed...a few of 3rd/3.5
Have not even looked at 4ed.

Quote from: estar;413195What's not being mentioned are the intangibles. The most important of which is the social network that comes with the D&D Brand. That is the real driver not the "brand" but the social network that stands behind.

The brand is short hand for "I can find players to play with and expect readily available books of a certain quality." This give the D&D name it's value and as long it is attached to a fantasy roleplaying it will retain some value.

Now there are limits. If wizard's tried to shift the genre or shift the fundamental game (like to checkers) it would effectively destroy the brand. As it is the shift to 4e was probably more harmful than good. They could have adapted the 3e rules to achieve many of the same design goals.

Indeed.

If the social network was absent or completely depleted, the market value of the D&D "brand name" would be almost next to worthless.  In such dire circumstances, it wouldn't be worth much more than a generic fantasy heartbreaker.

That's a good point. Network externalities are quite important. But again, only as good as their health-status. If D&D has lost, as suggested, one-sixth of its players from 3e to 4e, then that's a huge decrease in the value of externalities.

And the question then has to be why that loss? And the reason is the Game. 4e is not the Game, and enough people feel that way to make it falter.

RPGpundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;413736That's a good point. Network externalities are quite important. But again, only as good as their health-status. If D&D has lost, as suggested, one-sixth of its players from 3e to 4e, then that's a huge decrease in the value of externalities.

And the question then has to be why that loss? And the reason is the Game. 4e is not the Game, and enough people feel that way to make it falter.

RPGpundit

Given that D&D's player network is a substantial part of its value, the Game is not the only reason for the loss; their marketing strategy was very bad on many levels. If I were to pick the single worst marketing failure, it would be the principle of "target the WOTC forum hardcore, worry about casual players next year." Something like the D&D essentials starter set should have been part of the beginning rollout, not something that comes out in the dust of "Player's Handbook 3" and "Martial Power 2."

The argument could be, and has been made that the game design suffered from an approach consonant with the marketing strategies, but the marketing strategy were in and of themselves big problems.