Red Box: Some Constructive Criticism

[JohnSnow]

Well, I hope this counts as problems and/or issues.

Frankly, I'm disappointed. I was hoping for a new 4e-compatible version of the Mentzer box. This isn't that, and I think WotC has missed the point of a Starter Set. Again.

Look, maybe this is marketing's fault, but stop throwing up starter sets that aren't complete games. There's enough here that you can make characters, but ONLY by walking through the adventure. Limited classes and races are fine. But it should meet the following criteria:

It should be fully compatible with the rest of the D&D Essentials line. Comparing it to the Ampersand Heroes of the Fallen Lands preview articles, the rogue (supposedly a thief) is markedly different, and the fighter (supposedly a slayer) adds CON to damage instead of DEX. As errata in a regular book, those would be annoying. In a Starter Set, they're inexcusable.

It should include real character creation rules. The new Red Box doesn't. You can't change weapons, or have your rogue pick up a short sword from the goblins. Why can't the PCs pick up bows or short swords? Sure, in the solo adventure, fine. But that option needs to be addressed before you go on a "real adventure." Especially if you go back to town where, presumably, there's a weapons shop.

It should enable the DM to create his own adventures, and provide the essence of the D&D experience. That means monster stats, treasure to give out, and ideally a trap or two. Some of this is there, but some of it is sadly lacking.

This is not meant to be a rant. I truly believe a real 4e-version of the Red Box has the potential to expand the audience for D&D - a lot. Sadly, this isn't that. I wanted to be able to buy this for young gamers, but without Heroes of the Fallen Lands, it's not complete. Ergo, it's not worth it. The $20 entry point is a fiction.

It wouldn't have to go very high in level. Maintaining the tradition of it going to Level 3 would be best, but even Level 2 would be okay if it included actual character creation rules (and an equipment list!) so you could create a PC of any combo you can imagine. Default array stats are fine. Limited options for classes and races are fine. Limited monster and treasure options are fine. But there should be SOME.

This, sadly, isn't a complete game. It's a fancy intro with basically pre-gen characters and one adventure. In other words, it's a lot like the LAST 4e Starter Set. Nostalgia packaging aside, it's a disappointment.

It is my hope that this feedback will make the next printing of this set BETTER.

 

[Reaper Steve]

This, sadly, isn't a complete game. It's a fancy intro with basically pre-gen characters and one adventure. In other words, it's a lot like the LAST 4e Starter Set. Nostalgia packaging aside, it's a disappointment.
.

I disagree. It is a MUCH better starter set. It teaches a new player the rules better than any previous version.

Char gen rules do not make a starter set. The whole point of the starter set is to hook someone so that they will want to buy HotFL so they can do full char gen.

As far as a newbie is concerned, they are making a character with the Red Box. They get to choose from 4 races and 4 classes and then make meaningful choices over the powers that those classes have. Anything more is overwhelming.

BL: the Red Box is not targeted at the established player. But it's still a great value for $20 and I'll be sure to get my moneys worth out of it.

 

[JohnSnow]

I disagree. It is a MUCH better starter set. It teaches a new player the rules better than any previous version.

Char gen rules do not make a starter set. The whole point of the starter set is to hook someone so that they will want to buy HotFL so they can do full char gen.

As far as a newbie is concerned, they are making a character with the Red Box. They get to choose from 4 races and 4 classes and then make meaningful choices over the powers that those classes have. Anything more is overwhelming.

BL: the Red Box is not targeted at the established player. But it's still a great value for $20 and I'll be sure to get my moneys worth out of it.

Like all the recent Starter Sets, but totally unlike the original Red Box, this isn't in any way replayable - at all. It's basically one starter adventure. And once you hit level 2, you realistically need more than this box includes. Granted there's monsters and you can build your own encounters, but if you want to hand out rewards to 2nd-level heroes, you need more than the information in the Red Box. So, protestations to the contrary, it's really a 1st-level (honestly 1 adventure) set, not a set for characters of Levels 1-2. That may be good at forcing those people who really want them to buy more products, but it's terrible for getting lots of people to WANT to buy more products.

You're falling for the same mistake that WotC has - seeing this as a "bait and switch" product. That's what every starter set has been since the Basic D&D days. Not surprisingly, they've ALL fallen well short of the success of the Mentzer Red Box. Why? Because a Starter Set that lacks replayability doesn't sink its teeth in well enough to create a gamer. It may be good at teaching someone how to play (I agree it is), but unless you can play more than one adventure, you won't get "what the big deal" is. The "amazing" factor that truly makes D&D is just not there in this set.

I guess I shouldn't have expected more, given their recent track-record with Starter Sets. But WotC raised my expectations by putting it in the classic packaging. I thought they got it. And then...they blew it. Newbies aren't expecting much, so they'll probably be okay with what they get in this set. It'll do "okay." It's a decent safe set that may gain them a few new players. Meh.

But I'm convinced a true 4e version of the original Red Box would have wowed the newbies. They would have gone in not expecting much and been blown away, just like we all were back in 1983. Sure, it carries the risk that they could have played forever without buying Heroes of the Fallen Lands or anything else. But none of them would have wanted to. Launching that product is risky. And I guess the "play it safe" crowd won - again.

To get so close to the mark and then miss it is just a damn shame.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Stating that the Starter Set does not including anything but the intro adventure is flat out wrong.

Pages 40 ff. of the DM's Book have advice on Creating Adventures, including quests, building a dungeon (with example maps), designing encounters, monsters, and rewards (treasure).

Granted, there is limited content, but this is a Starter Set. Its very name makes it clear that there is more of the game to be had.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Stating that the Starter Set does not including anything but the intro adventure is flat out wrong.

Pages 40 ff. of the DM's Book have advice on Creating Adventures, including quests, building a dungeon (with example maps), designing encounters, monsters, and rewards (treasure).

Granted, there is limited content, but this is a Starter Set. Its very name makes it clear that there is more of the game to be had.

Limited info is not the the problem here. Information that is almost completely incompatible with the content in Heroes of the Fallen Lands IS the big problem. The starter is a complete throwaway unless what comes in later volumes builds upon what is presented in the redbox.

It would be like the Mentzer Expert set being released and covering the basic rules again but changing the hit die for classes, XP tables, spell progession, etc. That would make the Basic set fairly worthless wouldn't it? WOTC has done the same thing here by turning the redbox into nothing more than a highly inaccurate preview for essentials.

Imagine the newb who eagerly grabs HOTFL to advance his 2nd level rogue to 3rd level. Haha -you thought you were playing the actual game for two levels is what he's going to see.

 

[thalmin]

I will reserve judgement until I get a chance to check out Heroes of the Fallen Lands.

 

[JohnSnow]

Stating that the Starter Set does not including anything but the intro adventure is flat out wrong.

Pages 40 ff. of the DM's Book have advice on Creating Adventures, including quests, building a dungeon (with example maps), designing encounters, monsters, and rewards (treasure).

Granted, there is limited content, but this is a Starter Set. Its very name makes it clear that there is more of the game to be had.

Sorry, but no.

I've read those pages. They pay lip service to the notion of creating new adventures, using the existing map. Granted there are monsters, I freely admit that, but the treasure information is woefully inadequate. Do you really think 7 distinct magic items is sufficient for a Starter Set? The Moldvay set had 48 (plus character creation rules and DM advice, all in 64 pages, but I digress...). The Mentzer set had 53! And that's not accounting for the possibility of different KINDS of spell scrolls.

Even though you're theoretically based in Fallcrest, there's no discussion of how to buy new weapons or armor. Moreover, what if a player wants to pick up the weapons of the goblins he kills? A shortsword or short bow is intuitively BETTER than a dagger, and a 2nd level rogue knows he's proficient with them and gets the same bonus (Weapon Finesse, DM's Book, p. 39). So, why can't he use them?

No ability to change weapons? No general character creation rules? 7 magic items? Sure, maybe you can muddle through a second level but that's hardly the "Complete D&D Experience." It's more like...one adventure.

You're saying we should excuse this on the basis that "it's a Starter Set." But consider: by putting it in the Red Box, they're obviously aiming it at the lapsed gamer, who is going to expect a similar experience to the Mentzer set. It's extremely disingenuous to claim (as the back of the Starter Set does) that this is "game rules and adventure content for heroes of Levels 1-2." They have repeatedly claimed (including in the recent Podcast) that "it's D&D in a box." But is it, really? The Red Box was. By using that packaging and those terms, they raised expectations that they could deliver the same thing. And then they fell woefully short. And I admit that there are technically "character creation rules," but being able to make nearly the exact same fighter, or whatever, with 4 different races is kinda...weak. They'd have as much variability with 16 pre-gen characters. Aside: how exactly does a halfling fighter use a Greatsword or Greataxe anyway?

For the next printing, WotC should double the length of the Player's Book and include full, if abbreviated, class and race descriptions. 4 pages per class and 1 per race is 20. Toss in a couple (possibly condensed) equipment tables (6 pages). That leaves 6 pages to play with. If that's too long, you might be able to keep it to 16 extra pages by leaving the power descriptions on cards. Include a few more low-level magic items in the DM's Book (or mention them there and include a couple more sheets of just item cards). THAT would truly be "D&D in a box," and something worthy of the Red Box packaging.

This is meant, not as a rant, but as constructive criticism for Wizards. However, I admit it's not appropriate if this thread is just tracking errata. So if the mods want to move my posts into a "Red Box: Some Constructive Criticism" thread, I have no objection.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Some interesting discussion about Red Box ended up in the wrong thread and was deleted from there.

However, since there were some interesting discussion points, I'm grafting those posts into this thread.

Please make every effort to be discuss amiably though. Thanks!

 

[Tony Vargas]

You're saying we should excuse this on the basis that "it's a Starter Set." But consider: by putting it in the Red Box, they're obviously aiming it at the lapsed gamer, who is going to expect a similar experience to the Mentzer set.

I started with the 'blue book' basic set, basically the same thing as the red box, just a cheesier cover. My experience was playing it a little while (with friends who just didn't get it), then moving on to AD&D. I found that characters were quite different, rules were different, it was a noticeably different game.

Now, I don't think WotC intentionally made the Red Box inadequate or intentionally made mistakes or intentionally made the Red Box characters noticeably incompatible with the PH and Heroes of... But, coincidentally enough, the Red Box may well deliver the same bewildering experience as starting with the Basic Set in the 80s and going straight to AD&D (rather than on to the rest of BECMI).

 

[ExploderWizard]

I started with the 'blue book' basic set, basically the same thing as the red box, just a cheesier cover. My experience was playing it a little while (with friends who just didn't get it), then moving on to AD&D. I found that characters were quite different, rules were different, it was a noticeably different game.

Now, I don't think WotC intentionally made the Red Box inadequate or intentionally made mistakes or intentionally made the Red Box characters noticeably incompatible with the PH and Heroes of... But, coincidentally enough, the Red Box may well deliver the same bewildering experience as starting with the Basic Set in the 80s and going straight to AD&D (rather than on to the rest of BECMI).

The major difference being that, in the 80's there were two separate product lines; D&D and AD&D. The Holmes book was indeed a mishmash product caught between the two lines. The Moldvay and Mentzer sets were clearly presented and non AD&D focused. This time there is only one line, just D&D and new players shouldn't have to be subjected to this kind of confusion.

The important feature about these sets was that they were the actual D&D game for the limited levels that they covered. Expert, Companion, and other future sets built on and added to the basic box but never invalidated it. With the basic set you could run a full campaign, limited to 3rd level and largely in the dungeon of course.

The problem with every WOTC starter set is that it has little to zero value once the supporting product is released. The maps and tokens are reusable but that's about it. I'm not saying that the starter set should have had exclusive rules content or anything (which would have made it mandatory for experienced players) but enough info to make it into a replayable set with concise character creation even if the options are really limited.

A little more time spent making this set more complete and compatible with later product would have had a huge impact on the quality and utility of this product.