Red Box discontinued......Smart Move?

Walking Dad said:

But the Pathfinder box simplified the rules by ignoring AoOs and Combat Maneuvers. I don't really like this approach.

I think a new Red Box based on the less option filled essential-like classes could be successful. The warpriest and mage are still to option heavy for a beginners box. I would really like to see a arcane controller and a divine leader as simple as the knight and thief.

Click to expand...

On your first point, I'm fine with simplifying any rules that are likely to be a barrier to entry, so we disagree there. The game should be runnable out-the-box by a bright 10 year old GM.

On your second point, I agree. I'd cut down the warpriest and mage to something more like knight/slayer/thief. Still a couple choices, like 'Which Trick' & 'Which Stance', because choice is fun, but minimal complexity.

delericho;5730280 It does seem harsh to simply say that the Pathfinder Beginner Box is the model that should be used said:

decades[/i] - WotC could do a lot worse than to copy it.

Click to expand...

Clearly heavily inspired by Mentzer, but they did a few clever things of their own, like including a blank flipmat, that + a marker pen gives you infinite terrain, dungeons, cities et al, for life! That's the kind of robust approach that can get new players hooked on the game. Likewise extending the level range out to 1-5 was a very good decision; Holmes-Moldvay-Mentzer 3-levels-of-play was at the absolute minimum for a real Basic set, as evidenced by the repeated failure of WotC's 2-level sets. There's a strong case for a 10-level Heroic Tier box set, but that would come at the expense of sales for the existing Essentials line. 5-levels is enough to get people hooked with ca 15 sessions of play, but still lead (most of) them on into the existing product line.

delericho said:

- A smallish set of character options. Four races and four classes is probably best, being the classic set of Human, Elf, Dwarf and Halfling; and Fighter, Wizard, Rogue and Cleric. (Incidentally, those names should probably be fixed.)
.

Click to expand...

Personally I'd be happy to lose the non-human races, but I guess they don't take up much page count. I'd drop Halfling first, maybe replace with Half-Elf: IMO Half-Elf is the most popular non-human race choice (except in 3e where it was mechanically very weak), in my Loudwater game AIR there are 3 Half-Elves, a Human and a Genasi. Small races bring in some unwelcome complexity.
Dwarves are never very popular, although very much a D&D staple, I'd drop them next.

S'mon said:

Clearly heavily inspired by Mentzer,

Click to expand...

True that. But if you're going to copy, copy from the best!

There's a strong case for a 10-level Heroic Tier box set, but that would come at the expense of sales for the existing Essentials line. 5-levels is enough to get people hooked with ca 15 sessions of play, but still lead (most of) them on into the existing product line.

Click to expand...

One product I would love to see (though probably not as a Starter product) would be a 'digest' version of D&D. Basically, imagine a book the size and format of the current "Rules Compendium", but including everything needed for Heroic tier play - a small (but not overly limiting) set of races and classes, a smallish set of powers, and feats, and equipment, and magic items, a small amount of DM advice (complete with "page 42"), and a smallish set of monsters.

That is, one book giving a subset of the game that is, in some sense, 'complete' in and of itself.

Doing it such that they didn't feel the need to then heavily errata/revise it two weeks after release would also be nice, of course!

S'mon said:

Personally I'd be happy to lose the non-human races, but I guess they don't take up much page count. I'd drop Halfling first, maybe replace with Half-Elf: IMO Half-Elf is the most popular non-human race choice (except in 3e where it was mechanically very weak), in my Loudwater game AIR there are 3 Half-Elves, a Human and a Genasi. Small races bring in some unwelcome complexity.

Click to expand...

I agree that small races bring in some complexity. On the other hand, because of the LotR effect, I would be reluctant to drop halflings.

I certainly wouldn't drop halflings for half-elves - the latter are just too close to full elves for comfort. To be honest, I felt that the 4e PHB was distinctly weakened by including three 'elfy' races - the elves, the super-elves, and the bit-less-elfy-elves.

If we were to replace one of the races, I agree that halflings should be the one to go. But for their replacement... I dunno. Actually, I can see a strong argument for Dragonborn getting the nod.

Dwarves are never very popular, although very much a D&D staple, I'd drop them next.

Click to expand...

My mileage varies. Over here, Dwarves are extremely popular, and elves much less so. Of course, I'm still playing 3e, so that may adjust things. (And, of course, WotC will have the DDI information, so they should know which races are actually the most popular.)

Non human race should be:

- Elf
- Dwarf
- Halfling
- Dragonborn

That's a nice mix. And can we fatten up the halflings please? The poor little chaps have been on a diet for two editions now.

Dwarves are the most popular race after halfings in my own experience.

vagabundo said:

Non human race should be:

- Elf
- Dwarf
- Halfling
- Dragonborn

That's a nice mix. And can we fatten up the halflings please? The poor little chaps have been on a diet for two editions now.

Dwarves are the most popular race after halfings in my own experience.

Click to expand...

According to WotC Dwarf Fighter is the most popular choice of class/race combo. From what they said at DDXP there is no other combo that even comes close.

Walking Dad said:

But the Pathfinder box simplified the rules by ignoring AoOs and Combat Maneuvers. I don't really like this approach.

Click to expand...

Eh, I think Paizo definitely made the right call here. Remember this is a set to bring beginners into the game and I think one serious problem both WotC and Paizo face are the amount of rules involved in teaching the game to new players.

Many would say, and I would agree, that the most important thing is to get them playing and then (just like boardgame expansions) increase complexity and options as they become more familiar and comfortable with the game. Paizo seems to have taken an approach I actually think was a good one as I have seen first hand how AoO can cause alot of confusion with new players of the game... On a secondary note the boxed set also provides a rules-lighter version of Pathfinder for those who desire it and serves as an example of how one can customize the level of complexxity in a d20/3.x based game... so I'm going to say good call on Paizo's part.

The other side is that they are trivially easy for someone who is experienced, like yourself, to add them in if they want.

Walking Dad said:

I think a new Red Box based on the less option filled essential-like classes could be successful. The warpriest and mage are still to option heavy for a beginners box. I would really like to see a arcane controller and a divine leader as simple as the knight and thief.

Click to expand...

I don't think the failure of the red box has anything to do with how option heavy the included classes were... frankly, and IMO, WotC made an inferior product (numerous errors in compatibility) with little replay value, a low-level limit and not enough bang for the buck when it came to components and usability. This is especially apparent when comparing it to the Pathfinder Beginner Box. WotC needs to come up with a better all around product than they have for 4e starters so far. Instead of trying to sell a badly edited promo for the game... actually sell an introductory game. Ultimately it has to be a product people feel is worth the money they are spending on it and I think the red box (even amongst 4e fans) missed the mark big time.

D'karr said:

According to WotC Dwarf Fighter is the most popular choice of class/race combo. From what they said at DDXP there is no other combo that even comes close.

Click to expand...

Glad to see my experience isn't that far off the norm.

Dwarves are probably my own personal favourite race.

TirionAnthion said:

As a retailer, I am no longer able to order the Red Box from Wizards. They have not explained why, only that the product is currently "Out of Stock" and they do not know when it will be available again.

I am hoping that they release a revised Red Box. The new Pathfinder Beginner Box is an excellent product and I would like to have something similar for my D&D players.

Click to expand...

It would seem to be pretty easy to fix the compatibility issues in another printing.

Of course, they may not think its worth the trouble. Or they are planning a much bigger revision.

Or they are just planning to reprint the existing Red Box, and its not really discontinued.

As usual, we don't really know.

delericho said:

Cancelling the Red Box is a good move. Cancelling the only Introductory Set for the game is a really bad move.

Click to expand...

I alas have to spread XP around before giving more to delericho.

I too really wish that WotC had done a better job with the 4e beginner's box.

Just this weekend I actually introduced some people to the world of RPGs, and I chose Dragon Age as their starting game. Partially this is because I've been itching to play it, but I think it also does a great job introducing new players and follows in the footstep of Mentzer. That box is in fact the first five levels of the game.

I also like that the rules are simpler even than the beginner's box, though this does nothing to dilute the core experience. (They quickly got drunk and started a fight and nearly killed somebody who had an important role later in the adventure). Plus the intro adventure in the GM's is much more than the Dungeon Crawl that most beginner's boxes give.

The only thing I think Dragon Age is missing is the "chose your own adventure" style adventure in the player's guide.