D&D 5E Comment on the negative article by John Dodd

[Henry]

I just read the review -- and yeah, I'm gonna go with "biased" regardless of intention. And for the record, I'm a regular PF player and consumer of their print and PDF products. In several cases (commentary on theater of the mind, the monster illustrations, the cost) exceptions seemed to be made by the reviewer when introducing the Paizo product that weren't made for the WotC product. The production values for the Beginner Box are higher, there is no question -- but you should make sure to note that the MSRPs are significantly different, with one being in "impulse buy" range ($20)and the other not ($35).

 

[Xodis]

Twig blight and ochre jelly I could see wanting an illustration for as a newcomer.

Ochre Jelly - Urine colored slime

Twig Blight - Tree man

lol I agree with you, but couldn't pass a chance to describe the Jelly this way.

 

[billd91]

I'm genuinely curious what makes you feel his review was even-handed, because his whole basis of comparison was flawed...

How is the basis of comparison flawed? They're both beginner/starter sets? Wouldn't people in the market assume they're reasonably equivalent based on their titles?

I'd say that elements of the product are directly compared in a reasonable fashion. This isn't a hack job aimed at D&D 5e or the Starter Set. Where the Starter Set is judged to fall short, cogent reasons are presented. Where there are hitches with the Beginner Box, cogent reasons are presented.

And in a later post, he does mention the price difference of £7. Is that a small amount? Depends on how you look at it. In US terms, that's a shade under $12. That might not seem a small amount but I don't know how £7 feels to a Briton. Does it feel smaller in single-digit terms than in double-digit terms? I might consider $7 a reasonably small amount (particularly given the difference in product between the two) but then I'm familiar enough with the exchange rate to know the difference between $7 and £7. That and since the 1990s, every time I've gone to the UK I've felt the sticker shock (especially so in 2007 when the exchange rate was so bad) so I'm a bit more gunshy on this than other people might be.

 

[Sacrosanct]

How is the basis of comparison flawed? They're both beginner/starter sets? Wouldn't people in the market assume they're reasonably equivalent based on their titles?

I'd say that elements of the product are directly compared in a reasonable fashion. This isn't a hack job aimed at D&D 5e or the Starter Set. Where the Starter Set is judged to fall short, cogent reasons are presented. Where there are hitches with the Beginner Box, cogent reasons are presented.

It's like giving new drivers an experience driving a Mercedes CLA compared to an Elantra without telling them the price difference until a side note at the very end. It strikes me as a bit disingenuous.

And in a later post, he does mention the price difference of £7. Is that a small amount? Depends on how you look at it. In US terms, that's a shade under $12. That might not seem a small amount but I don't know how £7 feels to a Briton. Does it feel smaller in single-digit terms than in double-digit terms? I might consider $7 a reasonably small amount (particularly given the difference in product between the two) but then I'm familiar enough with the exchange rate to know the difference between $7 and £7. That and since the 1990s, every time I've gone to the UK I've felt the sticker shock (especially so in 2007 when the exchange rate was so bad) so I'm a bit more gunshy on this than other people might be.

You shouldn't be looking at it from a "It's only $12 difference, and that's not much.", but "It's twice as expensive" The ratio is what's important, not the flat $ amount of difference.

 

[Boarstorm]

The thing I find most disingenuous about the article is that they didn't play the full starter set. I understand he didn't want to delay the review another month, but... it kind-of matters.

The BB is a great product, but it only offers a few hours (at most) worth of adventure as opposed to 20+ hours in the Starter Set. And, to be frank, the best part of the SS is not the goblin caves (though that in itself is a valid criticism -- a hook should have bait on it if you want to catch fish, after all).

The starter set isn't a perfect product, but I feel it was judged on its glossiness and lack of toys (miniature stand-ins), and not its content.

The formatting is also a valid criticism, in my opinion.

 

[billd91]

The thing I find most disingenuous about the article is that they didn't play the full starter set. I understand he didn't want to delay the review another month, but... it kind-of matters.

The BB is a great product, but it only offers a few hours (at most) worth of adventure as opposed to 20+ hours in the Starter Set. And, to be frank, the best part of the SS is not the goblin caves (though that in itself is a valid criticism -- a hook should have bait on it if you want to catch fish, after all).

I thought that topic was reasonably addressed:

It was generally agreed that while it would take longer to play through the D&D mini campaign, you’d have nothing to do at the end of it, whereas the Pathfinder instructions gave you ideas on what to do when you were done with the material that you were given.

Certainly, I think people can disagree with that assessment, but does it really indicate the review is being disingenuous? I would consider that a strong charge to make and I don't see enough evidence of it.

 

[Agamon]

The difference in price means I own the Starter Set, but not the Beginner Box. And I wouldn't own either if they were the same higher price point. So from my own point of view, yeah, it's a significant point.

 

[Boarstorm]

I thought that topic was reasonably addressed:

[quote="John Dodd Review"}It was generally agreed that while it would take longer to play through the D&D mini campaign, you’d have nothing to do at the end of it, whereas the Pathfinder instructions gave you ideas on what to do when you were done with the material that you were given.

Certainly, I think people can disagree with that assessment, but does it really indicate the review is being disingenuous? I would consider that a strong charge to make and I don't see enough evidence of it.[/QUOTE]

One sentence, whose validity is suspect (between the Box and Basic Rules there is EASILY as much expansion as you could find in the BB) does not constitute "reasonably addressed" in my opinion.

It's like suggesting that we're only going to read the first paragraph of two different novels and saying that just by acknowledging it's not a complete review it suddenly becomes a valid comparison.

It doesn't. Works deserve to be judged in their entirety, not from cherry-picked examples.

 

[billd91]

It's like giving new drivers an experience driving a Mercedes CLA compared to an Elantra without telling them the price difference until a side note at the very end. It strikes me as a bit disingenuous.

Personally, I find it interesting that people are analogizing the Beginner Box as the Mercedes or Cadillac of starter games.

You shouldn't be looking at it from a "It's only $12 difference, and that's not much.", but "It's twice as expensive" The ratio is what's important, not the flat $ amount of difference.

Is the ratio really what's important? A 2-liter of soda is a bit more than 2x the cost of a can from the vending machine but, since we're still talking less than $1 in difference I'm not that fussed and consider it a small change in price for a large change in value. If the absolute amount isn't a lot, why would the ratio matter that much?

Moreover, if I could spend $12 more to get a Mercedes over an Elantra - wouldn't I jump at the chance?

A bit more seriously, why would we expect it to always be the ratio? Might it not matter from buyer to buyer whether the £7 is a big deal or not?

 

[Jester David]

While the review was certainly biased, this thread honestly isn't much better.
Someone dared to say Paizo's newbie product was more appealing to brand new players and tested this by actually getting new players to compare, and people have to bash the review and praise the Starter Set, going as far as giving it good reviews on amazon.
That the Beginner Box *might* potentially do a better job is just irrelevant to the outrage.

Yes, the price of the Beginner Box is much, much higher than the Starter Set. But both products are aimed at roughly the same audience and demographics. The fact that one company thought the best way to make an impression was a big expensive products and the other felt the best way to reach that same audience was a cheap disposable product. That was a choice, and one that should be a factor in the review.
WotC decided to price their current starter box at the exact same MSRP as their products 14 years ago (I've heard the first 3e starter set, the one without miniatures, was priced at $20 back in 2000).
(I'm still hunting for the original price of the 2e starter sets, and the 1e boxes.)

What else should we compare the Starter Set to if not the similar product some by its immediate competitor? The Star Wars starter sets? DragonAge? WotC's past efforts?

Yes, a fair review should limit itself to the comparable content. The flip-mat and tokens and character gen should not be dwelled on. But just looking at the overlap between the two products shows some differences in style and design.
The Starter Set looks very much like the other 5th Edition products and there are great walls of text in most places. The character sheets are crammed with rules and boxes of information. There's no colour or cross referencing or iconography.
The Beginner Box's layout is very slick, and it's character sheet is cross referenced with the Rulebook. They're very well done. Everything is clean and colorful and looks fairly different than other Pathfinder products because this is aimed at newbies first. Everything is meant to be easy and precise.

I like the Starter Set.
I paid money for it. I don't regret my purchase. Dunno if I'll run the adventure but I plan on saving it as a product to use with my son, or give to him as a leg up on being a DM and running the game. Because 5e seems like a really solid edition I'll still be playing in five or six years when my kid is old enough to try. Pathfinder... isn't as friendly to new players and I don't think I'll still being using the current system that far in advance, so the Beginner Box is not a product I wanted to invest in.
I like it the Starter Set. It's the best Starter Set WotC has put out in ten or so years.
But it isn't this amazing revolutionary product. It doesn't raise the bar. It's safe and takes no risks.
But... it could be much better.

The Pathfinder Beginner Box set out to not only be a newbies kit but the best newbie kit and every part of it shows the effort that was out in. The D&D Starter Set is an edited version of the core rule with an adventure written by a freelancer. It seems like it was an effort to make a product that was better than the last set, but not raise the bar or do anything really different. They certainly didn't just phone-in the product, but neither was it a labour of love and that shows. The Starter Set is, at best, above average.