Mike Mearls Answers Questions About "Dungeons and Dragons Next"

[the Jester]

I agree that 4e had board game elements. I just don't see how the Ravenloft board game showed them that D&D doesn't need to draw on video game or board game design to be good. Ravenloft was basically the 4E rules in full board game form. Just feel like I am missing the connective tissue here.

Well, it showed them that they can create a D&D board game that has board game elements in it; that way they attract boardgamers to the D&D 'brand' without forcing board game elements into the rpg.

 

[Spinachcat]

But why are they so hellbent on trying to bring in a new demographic to the game? Why risk grabbing the attention of WoW players that will barely bat an eye at something like D&D when they have a huge market to begin with?

D&D does not have a "huge market". They have a tiny market full of old people who aren't good customers compared to other hobbyists.

Teens and young adults are the prime demographic if you want customers with significant time and disposable income to devote to a hobby.

The D&D populace is skewed too old and too poor to be desirable or capable of meeting the sales numbers demanded by a public company.

That's why the need to be x10 more hellbent than they are now.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, I've only encountered one new player who tried the Red Box, and he said he couldn't make head nor tail of it. The Ravenloft board game was a much better intro to D&D for him.

Of course, that's a sample size of one, and the plural of anecdote is not data, so take it with a huge pinch of salt.

Also, simply because most of the criticisms on here come from long-time players doesn't make them invalid.

Many of the criticisms are valid even (or especially) from the view of the newbie - the "pay for preview" nature of the product, the too-short level range, the fact that the rules are almost but not quite the same as in Essentials proper, the character creation mini-game (that's going to get old very quickly)... Even the low price point may work against it - it makes the game look cheap, which can lead to a "you get what you pay for" attitude. (Of course, the low price point can also take it into "impulse buy" territory, so that's probably a wash.)

Nope, I don't think any of these are a criticism for a newbie.
A low price is never bad. It makes it easy to acquire. You don't risk a lot of money.

The too-short level range is not really a concern for the newbie - only for the guy that actually wants to keep playing the thing but is not willing to spend more money. But a person not willing to spend more money than the starter set cost is also not that relevant, as he alredy gave WotC all the money he apparantly is willing to spend on their products anyway. T

he slight differences in the rules don't matter for the newbie much, either. As long as he uses only the Starter Set, he doesn't know. And if he buys more - of course there are differences. THis is the "real deal", and the minor rule differences are nothing compared to having 28 more levels to play with than before. There is so much new, that some minor changes won't affect much.

 

[delericho]

Nope, I don't think any of these are a criticism for a newbie.
A low price is never bad. It makes it easy to acquire. You don't risk a lot of money.

Actually, not quite. People have a sense of how much something 'should' cost. If you go too far under that, you risk giving the impression that your product is a piece of cheap rubbish.

And, when in a toy store, when presented with a more-expensive but quality product and a piece of cheap rubbish, a wise parent will always go for the more expensive option - it's less likely to break or get lost, and more likely to see some proper usage.

Going for the low price isn't always a good idea.

The too-short level range is not really a concern for the newbie - only for the guy that actually wants to keep playing the thing but is not willing to spend more money.

It is a mistake to expect people to play through the whole Red Box and then upgrade. The most likely time for them to upgrade is while in the middle of playing through the set. If they reach the end, it's likely they'll want to upgrade for a while... and then they'll put the Red Box away and forget all about it.

If the level range is too short, they'll play through the Red Box in a session or two, and so go beyond that "upgrade sweet spot" all too quickly.

The slight differences in the rules don't matter for the newbie much, either.

Fair enough, this isn't an issue for the newbie. Although it becomes an issue if a prospective player goes into an FLGS and asks where to start, and the (experienced) players then advise him to avoid the Red Box at all costs due to the incompatibilities. It becomes an issue if a Red Box player sits down at a low-level 4e-Essentials game, or worse 4e-Classic, and his character doesn't quite work (the Pathfinder Beginner Box has the same problem with AoOs, FWIW). And it's an (admittdely very mild) annoyance when upgrading to the 'real' game.

None of these criticisms are crippling, of course. As Mearls has said, the Red Box was a success for WotC. But there are better ways to do a Starter Set, and they should be investigated. Simply dismissing these criticisms out of hand because "they come from experienced players" does absolutely no good at all.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

The way I understand MM quote regarding the Ravenloft board game and eurogames and their connection to D&D is indirect. When designing both 4E and the Ravenloft boardgame they looked at the latest trends in RPGs for 4E and the latest trends in boradgames for Ravenloft. They incorporated those trends into 4E and weren't as successful in that approach as they had hoped. But when they designed Ravenloft, they determined that making it a eurogame style wouldn't work for the feel they wanted to convey. They instead made a good game based on its own strengths. And the eurogame crowd picked it up and played it because it was a great boardgame despite it not being a eurogame. So, following that logic, they've now realized that they don't have to make an RPG that tries too hard to incorporate the latest trends in RPG, they just need to make a great game that people will play despite not including those latest trends in gaming.

 

[darjr]

couldn't this philosophy be applied to editions of D&D? Instead of making a new D&D couldn't they just sell the different popular versions of D&D that people want?

I know they are doing this in a small way with the 1e AD&D core book reprints, but why not extend the philosophy above to versions of the game.

don't get me wrong, i want to see a 5e, especially now. But why not keep selling 4e and DDI and AD&D and 3.5?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

couldn't this philosophy be applied to editions of D&D? Instead of making a new D&D couldn't they just sell the different popular versions of D&D that people want?

I know they are doing this in a small way with the 1e AD&D core book reprints, but why not extend the philosophy above to versions of the game.

don't get me wrong, i want to see a 5e, especially now. But why not keep selling 4e and DDI and AD&D and 3.5?

Because new editions sell better out the gate than the sum of the later books.

3.5 sold better AFTER 4e came out than hit had for a couple of years before that, but that was very unusual.

Also, putting all old editions back into print would only serve to further divide the market, which is bad because it is a LOT more profitable to sell, lets say, 100 copies of one thing than 20 copies each of 5 things, all other things being equal.

 

[darjr]

Because new editions sell better out the gate than the sum of the later books.

3.5 sold better AFTER 4e came out than hit had for a couple of years before that, but that was very unusual.

Also, putting all old editions back into print would only serve to further divide the market, which is bad because it is a LOT more profitable to sell, lets say, 100 copies of one thing than 20 copies each of 5 things, all other things being equal.

Yea, I've heard all that before. I even kinda believe it. But if the new philosophy is to not try and make a game for all types of gamers (types of board gamers and video gamers and card gamers). Why not have the same for the older editions. Sure, they won't have the pop of the brand new edition but they would have this slow burn that would be positive and have players getting other players of all the editions they sold, and they'd be selling stuff to people they otherwise wouldn't be.

But I want to see 5e. And if they can really pull it off I'll be glad.

 

['Arry]

Ravenloft the board game is in edible . . .

I quite agree. I found the flavour very unapetising

 

[bhandelman]

Actually, not quite. People have a sense of how much something 'should' cost. If you go too far under that, you risk giving the impression that your product is a piece of cheap rubbish.

And, when in a toy store, when presented with a more-expensive but quality product and a piece of cheap rubbish, a wise parent will always go for the more expensive option - it's less likely to break or get lost, and more likely to see some proper usage.

Going for the low price isn't always a good idea.

Right, but this box set was $20, not $4. $20 seems to me to be just right, priced about what I would expect to pay for a family board game. I can't imagine someone saying "Only $20? That's way to cheap, there must be something shoddy about it." Especially if the person making that purchase is a "wise parent" who is unfamiliar with the TRPG market.

It is a mistake to expect people to play through the whole Red Box and then upgrade. The most likely time for them to upgrade is while in the middle of playing through the set. If they reach the end, it's likely they'll want to upgrade for a while... and then they'll put the Red Box away and forget all about it.

If the level range is too short, they'll play through the Red Box in a session or two, and so go beyond that "upgrade sweet spot" all too quickly.

I think this is hard to argue one way or the other. I haven't seen any market research to say whether 2 or 4 levels is better, nor any evidence to one side or the other. I know from my personal experience it didn't matter, I went out and bought a couple of essentials rule books and played at the FLGS. If it had been 4 levels in the box set, it either would have just taken me longer to go to the FLGS or I would not have finished the box set. Really it's 6 of one half a dozen of the other in my personal experience.

Fair enough, this isn't an issue for the newbie. Although it becomes an issue if a prospective player goes into an FLGS and asks where to start, and the (experienced) players then advise him to avoid the Red Box at all costs due to the incompatibilities.

I have seen the opposite of this. People at the store I go to regularly recommend the red box to people, it an easy way to figure out what the game is like. The "incompatibilities" aren't an issue because they are so minor and I've never heard anyone even bring that up.

It becomes an issue if a Red Box player sits down at a low-level 4e-Essentials game, or worse 4e-Classic, and his character doesn't quite work (the Pathfinder Beginner Box has the same problem with AoOs, FWIW). And it's an (admittdely very mild) annoyance when upgrading to the 'real' game.

None of these criticisms are crippling, of course. As Mearls has said, the Red Box was a success for WotC. But there are better ways to do a Starter Set, and they should be investigated. Simply dismissing these criticisms out of hand because "they come from experienced players" does absolutely no good at all.

I don't think anyone was dismissing the criticisms because "they come from experienced players", it was the fact that most of the criticisms that have been stated are non issues if you haven't played before. A new player isn't going to avoid the box set because it only has two levels or so of play. The new player is going to actually appreciate the character creation mini game as opposed to a bunch of dry text and rules trying to explain what choices you want to make for a new character, which can be fairly daunting. The rules differences between the starter box and essentials are so minor as to be almost completely a non issue. These are issues I've seen brought up in this thread that are 100% issues experienced players bring up that I didn't even think about when buying the boxed set.