D&D 5E Introductory game first?

[MerricB]

I've seen more than a few people whose opinions I respect put forward the idea that the introductory (basic) version of Next should come out before the full game... and possibly well before. I must admit I find the idea quite odd. What is the argument for it?

When I think of an introductory game, I think of it being something to get new players into the game. However, for a new edition, my major interest is in getting existing players to change first, then get new players. I don't think the introductory game should be released much later than the main game - which has been the case before - and ideally they should be released together, but why release the introductory game first?

Cheers!

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Introductory and "basic" games have been popular recently (4e Essentials's box and Paizo's box both sold well) but I believe both came after.

In order to avoid the negativity, WotC might be trying to sell to people who never played D&D before.

I wonder if it will work. Keep on the Shadowfell may have sold well but it wasn't a quality product. It's hard to write for a game system you don't know. My other example goes back 11-13 years, when TSR/WotC tried to sell an introductory Alternity game based on StarCraft (Alternity was not new at the time). I like the video game setting and gameplay, and had been driven from 2e D&D to Alternity... and still call that a terrible product. I doubt anyone who bought it hadn't played Alternity before either, so it probably wasn't destined to increase the fanbase.

 

[Morrus]

I don't think I would buy it. Well, unless it was a fraction of the price of the "real" game. After all, I'm going to buy the real thing anyway.

I think the way D&D developed has kinda set a precedent for something.... not quite the same. AD&D wasn't the "real" version of OD&D.

If any model like that were to work for me, the BECMI model would be it. But an "intro/basic" followed by "the real game" isn't vaguely part of my purchasing habit.

Thinking about it, I think I'd fall in love with WotC again if they went BECMI. Plus it seems genius to me: it's like five editions without calling them editions. You're just increasing the level. THAT'S how to sell five core rule books rather than PHB 1 and 2 etc.

 

[Dunnagin]

I've always fancied the idea of a simple core game (in Print), which would be augmented by online materials (PDF and Print on Demand).

That way, the public face of the game is simple and inviting for new players (growing the player base)... and players who want more and more complex rules have these rules readily available.

Also, I feel the inverse of this point is true... if you put out a very complex version of the game as your "flagship", then you risk driving away a huge base of casual players.

I don't need to be a full fledged computer programmer to use a PC or a Mac... those platforms are created for "ease of use" by a "wide base" of consumers.

This doesn't stop people from creating complex programs and software themselves... it just gives access to more people.

If you get my analogy.

 

[Umbran]

I expect it is supposed to be analogous to having "Basic D&D" and "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" back in the old days. I suspect the folks who want the introductory game out early really want "Basic D&D" again.

And if the design process were, "design Basic, then add on until you have Advanced," that might make some sense.

And, if, to the modern market, "introductory game" meant "like Basic D&D," it might make some sense.

I am not convinced either is true, however, so I don't know if there's much of a reason to get the intro game out early.

 

[Mercurius]

I'm of mixed mind. On one hand, I like the idea of the edition being introduced with the basic core box set, so that people can convert or start with a relatively simple game, then layering on the more complex "advanced" rules (trinity) a couple months later.

On the other hand, I like the idea of them creating a box set that includes any (hopefully very minor) rules fixes that might show up after the trinity are out for a few months.

So here's a thought: do both! Start with some kind of introductory product, either a box set or a softcover: "An Introduction to Dungeons & Dragons 5e." This might be a small volume like the essentials books that helps people start a game or convert their existing game, includes a short adventure, but it isn't meant to be the evergreen beginner's box set that would be the official entry into the game.

Then, if they can manage the trinity in June, the beginner's box set could come out in time for holiday season in November. So you have:

May - Intro to D&D box or softcover
June - Trinity
November - Beginner's Box

Of course it might make sense for the May product to be online only, maybe a special offering for Insiders who want to convert early and get a 5e game running. If so, it could come out even earlier than May.

Despite the fact that I think Next is Near, I have a hard time imagining that we'll see the trinity as soon as June - that's just six months from now! But one can hope...

 

[the Jester]

I'm of mixed mind. On one hand, I like the idea of the edition being introduced with the basic core box set, so that people can convert or start with a relatively simple game, then layering on the more complex "advanced" rules (trinity) a couple months later.

On the other hand, I like the idea of them creating a box set that includes any (hopefully very minor) rules fixes that might show up after the trinity are out for a few months.

You've already hit dealbreaker #1 for me; I'll just wait for the 'real' game (because it's the one everyone will actually play once they realize that the "intro" product is already outmoded).

So here's a thought: do both! Start with some kind of introductory product, either a box set or a softcover: "An Introduction to Dungeons & Dragons 5e." This might be a small volume like the essentials books that helps people start a game or convert their existing game, includes a short adventure, but it isn't meant to be the evergreen beginner's box set that would be the official entry into the game.

Then, if they can manage the trinity in June, the beginner's box set could come out in time for holiday season in November. So you have:

May - Intro to D&D box or softcover
June - Trinity
November - Beginner's Box

But who's going to buy all three of those, if there's overlapping material? And how much more "SPACEWASTERAGE!!!" does WotC really want to evoke for having all that overlapping material?

I dunno, man, I don't see this model working if all three versions are for sale, even if some of it is only online. And I don't think we'll see another major free release. I can see a "Basic Set" and a "trinity" working together if the Basic Set is 100% compatible and basic enough to start a group at a low cost and complexity level. But I won't spend money for three copies of the same material, and I'd find it irksome to have to spend $25 or more to get a small number of options that are only in the Basic Set or what have you.

I do like the BECMI model suggestion- that would work for me, assuming that the "B" box (book, whatever) had all the low-level stuff- not just "basic four", but the paladin, ranger, etc.

 

[KidSnide]

I would be perfectly happy with an intro game first, but that's mostly because I'd like to see WotC take as much time playtesting the game as possible. I liked that WotC spent the time fine tuning 4e, but the rapid accumulation of errata made the published books very difficult to use.

3.5 and Pathfinder have had the considerable advantages of years of experience with the system. I doubt it's feasible for D&DN to receive anywhere near the same level of testing, but I'd like to see WotC do anything it can to make sure that the primary three books represent a final version of the rules. Personally, I wouldn't mind a year of "BECMI-style" intro products followed up by a hardback trinity in 2015, particularly if I could pre-order the hardback and receive a series of advancing PDFs like the 13th Age Escalation Edition.

I may be in the minority, but I would rather delay my gratification than have a book on the shelf that feels out of date a couple years after I buy it.

-KS

 

[delericho]

I think it would be a mistake to release the introductory game first. Actually, I think it should be a key part of their strategy to release both at the same time, but if they really can't manage then the introductory game can wait.

That said, I actually think it's a mistake to draw a distinction between the introductory game and the 'real' game at all. That Starter Set should be built around the same Core Rulebook as everyone else uses, like those Warhammer starter sets of old included the same rulebook as everyone else used. (Though, by all means, sell the book separately, for anyone who doesn't want the full set. Just as long as it's the same book.)

That's what I'd do... but bear in mind that it's probably a very good thing I'm not in charge!

 

[Mark CMG]

Maybe they first come out with a NEXT Cyclopedia followed by the full version?