Red Box: Some Constructive Criticism

[Solvarn]

Basic was also.. Really basic. There's a lot more room in a box when you just have to detail what being an elf means, as opposed to being an elf and being another class on top.

There's a lot more to the game then there was back then.

If you can figure out how to get all of that into a box, and keep it at a good price, let them know your plan. (Don't forget to include real figures and costs, cause anyone can BS a bunch of ideas.)

Do that- and maybe they'll hire you. You'll be a hero- All the world will speak your name as the guy who brought back the good old days.

Wow, sarcasm. That's original.

Two pages for each class and three to four pages of more detailed equipment would have gone a long way to making a lot more people happy with this product. I can't imagine that 6 double sided black and white pages would have blown up the production value, although my knowledge of the publishing industry might not be up to your standards.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Basic was also.. Really basic. There's a lot more room in a box when you just have to detail what being an elf means, as opposed to being an elf and being another class on top.

Exactly the point. The game that the introductory set was teaching you was the actual game. The newcomer gets an easy to learn game system that is still expandable and not just an inaccurate preview of the stuff they are hoping you will want to buy.

There's a lot more to the game then there was back then.

There is? What happened to " the game remains the same."?

The entire slew of possible options do not need to be included. Just straightforward character creation for 4 races and 4 classes with a single build each for levels 1 and 2 including the ability to purchase basic equipment. All weapon types and magic items do not need to be included.

Include that, and make sure that the characters built with that can transition to 3rd level with future products without a rebuild and you have a real product-a replayable game with a wealth of opportunities for level 1-2 play.

 

[Scribble]

Wow, sarcasm. That's original.

Not so much sarcasm as a response to people always looking at things negatively, with no actual info to back it up...

It's easy to run around saying everything is horrible. It's easy to say you have a better idea, and quickly fire of a "better" plan of action on a message board.

It's not as easy to actually put a plan into action, especially when you have to deal with budgets, timelines, knowledge of future product, knowledge of what actually seems to be selling, fans who hate everything you do unless it was done in 1977 or simply because you did it, knowledge of what your target market actually currently looks like, and wants, etc...

In a thread about constructive criticism it seems like it would be fitting to actually back up nay-saying with a solid plan of action.

But if you want to be dismissive, that's cool too.

Exactly the point. The game that the introductory set was teaching you was the actual game. The newcomer gets an easy to learn game system that is still expandable and not just an inaccurate preview of the stuff they are hoping you will want to buy.

There is? What happened to " the game remains the same."?

Well for one thing, 4e never claimed to be the same game as "Basic D&D..."

Also, obviously they didn't mean the game remains word for word the same... What would be the point of changing the edition name then?

The entire slew of possible options do not need to be included. Just straightforward character creation for 4 races and 4 classes with a single build each for levels 1 and 2 including the ability to purchase basic equipment. All weapon types and magic items do not need to be included.

Include that, and make sure that the characters built with that can transition to 3rd level with future products without a rebuild and you have a real product-a replayable game with a wealth of opportunities for level 1-2 play.

My guess is had they done something like that they'd still be bashed, this time for people angry that newcomers had to buy that AND the first essentials book or something...

But again my challenge is the same- put that together, and show them the numbers.

Show that it can be done at the right price, and the right size, includes everything you need to start playing, and can be done on time.

Also maybe show why this plan would be the RIGHT plan- I'm reasonably sure they didn't just randomly pick a guy to decide to make this product on a whim. Since this is a pretty darn successful game company that's been around for a while now, owned by one of if not THE top toy/game companies in the country I get the feeling the men and women who work there have a little bit of knowledge about what they do for a living, and they had reasons for doing things the way they did. They probably even had power point presentations about it. With graphics and buzz words.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Has anyone given any consideration to these possibilities.

1. That the Elmore art was reused because the product fits an arbitrary niche that's similar to the old Red Box.

2. That the new red box isn't supposed to provide the same experience as the old one because 4E is not AD&D.

3. Based on the two statements above comparing the Essentials red box to the Basic D&D red box is not apples to apples.. more like apples to kobolds.

4. Based on the three statements above, most of the comparative statements in this thread are fundamentally flawed.

5. Based on the four statements above, this thread is largely the finest form of forum foolishness.

The way we used to learn to play the game when all the rules were different is not necessarily the best way to learn to play today's game. Oh well.

2 cents.
KB

 

[ExploderWizard]

But again my challenge is the same- put that together, and show them the numbers.

Show that it can be done at the right price, and the right size, includes everything you need to start playing, and can be done on time.

Also maybe show why this plan would be the RIGHT plan- I'm reasonably sure they didn't just randomly pick a guy to decide to make this product on a whim. Since this is a pretty darn successful game company that's been around for a while now, owned by one of if not THE top toy/game companies in the country I get the feeling the men and women who work there have a little bit of knowledge about what they do for a living, and they had reasons for doing things the way they did. They probably even had power point presentations about it. With graphics and buzz words.

If WOTC does not share their numbers & reasonings then any alternative plan has no real basis for a beginning.

"On time" has so many possible meanings just by itself. If a product has to be out the door by X date regardless of quality then the game is over because epic fail has already happened.

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

while I would have liked a more complete ruleset I see why the redbox was done as it is

to put full rules on character creation would have been a lot more of info to digest, as it is you go step by step both in character creation and rules explanation (and this is quite a feat in itself)

the original red box as has been noted had less character choices
human fighter
human cleric
human magic user
human thief
elven fighter/magic-user
halfling fighter
dwarf fighter

now each race has it's own subset of special skill, and so each class so it's not so easy to just make something understandable and easy to learn (IMO)

they must have gone for a compromise

 

[DEFCON 1]

If that's the case, then why the retro styling? It seems to me that the 1970s look would hurt the Red Box in this market, not help. I think the only market the retro aesthetic helps with is lapsed D&D players.

The old artwork from the original Red Box (which is being used for a special limited time right at the beginning of this Essentials release) absolutely was chosen in honor of the old version and quite possibly hope to provoke a sense of nostalgia in former players from the early 80s who haven't thought about playing D&D in almost 30 years. And this older styled artwork and font will remain with the game probably through Christmas, by which time those nostalgic parents will have seen the new Red Box on the toy store shelves and will have made the decision at that point whether to pick up the game for themselves on a whim for a measly 20 bucks. If WotC can perhaps grab a few of those nostalgic 40 year olds in the next six months, then using the older artwork for a short time was a success.

After that point, as far as I'm aware, they are then reprinting all new Essentials Red Boxes with the new fantasy artwork and new D&D logo, where it will remain on the shelves for the foreseeable future (probably several years at least). So it's during that lifespan that the Red Box will have a more "cool" look for all the current pre-teens and teenagers who will be buying it for themselves or been given it to them for birthdays and Christmases. So WotC ends up targeting and getting the best of both worlds.

The only thing they lose is the first six months of the game with the old artwork might somehow make a kid who gets given it during that time just a smidge less reason to actually open the box and read it, because the artwork doesn't look like the prototypical fantasy artwork they are currently used to on all the books they are reading. But you know what? If a kid reads enough fantasy books to actually be able to tell the difference between the visual look of current artwork on their young adult fantasy novels and the late 70s artwork of Larry Elmore... then those kids are probably already clued into the idea of games involving the fantasy genre and thus would be inclined to try out the game anyway regardless of the art, because it involves a subject matter they actually like.

95% of the kids who won't even bother opening and reading the Red Box they get given are the ones who just have no interest in fantasy, in gaming, or in fantasy gaming. And for those kids... they'd have no idea that the current Red Box artwork was from the 1970s anyway.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Then it should be obvious that making a fully contained, if condensed and simplified, game, is the way to go. Why is it that we became so enamoured with D&D with the Mentzer box, or B/X? It's because this was a full game, because we played and played and played, and were only left wanting for EVEN more.

They do have a fully contained, condenses, simplified D&D game. It's called Heroes of the Forgotten Lands.

Everyone here seems to be under the impression that the Red Box is supposed to be the base game of Essentials. It's not. Heroes of the Forgotten Lands is the base game of Essentials. You want to play Essentials D&D... you are playing Heroes of the Forgotten Lands.

You want to know what the Red Box actually is? It's an advertisement.

That's it.

It is a way for the Wizards of the Coast to advertise in toy stores and department stores that they have this game called Dungeons & Dragons that you can pick up at your local book store. By putting together this Red Box, it is no longer a "book" but is now (from the sellers pov) a "board game"... one that can be on the shelves right next to the Monopoly and the Hungry Hungry Hippos at Target.

And guess what? The people who are being targeted (no pun intended) with this boxed set who will look at and ultimately decide to purchase this game while wandering the aisles in the toy department of Walmart... are the ones who most likely have never walked the one particular aisle at Barnes & Noble where dozens upon dozens of D&D books have been sitting there for nigh on 20 years.

And thus... the Red Box doesn't have to be a so-called "complete roleplaying game". Because the folks who buy it aren't LOOKING for a "complete rolepaying game". If they were, they would have already seen "complete roleplaying games" on the shelves of Borders Books since the beginning of 3E at the very least, and already made the decision to buy or not to buy it.

The Red Box (like every other "starter game" WotC has produced) is meant for one thing only... offer up a taste of what D&D is to someone who has no clue what they are tasting. And if by some chance the person likes it, they tell the person "this is but the tip of the iceberg... the full game is in these books here, in a format that would have been way too dense for us to put in the starter set."

They don't WANT the starter game to be a "complete roleplaying game" because they don't want to give the impression that the Red Box IS IT. That that's the extent of what a "roleplaying game" is. Because from that perspective... regardless of what they could have put in the Red Box... basic, introductory roleplaying games really kinda suck. They are NOT things I want to play over and over. I sure as hell didn't just keep replaying my original OD&D Red Box over and over... I went ahead and bought the Blue Box. And then I bought the Turquoise Box. And then I realized from the promos that there was a game called AD&D that I could go pick up at a game store if I wanted... so I went looking for it and I did.

This is the kind of forward movement that WotC is trying to inspire in their new players and why they designed these Essentials products as they did. To buy one and hopefully enjoy it enough to then buy the next one. Then the next one. Then the next one. So on and so forth.

 

[Scribble]

If WOTC does not share their numbers & reasonings then any alternative plan has no real basis for a beginning.

Sure- but this just goes further towards my point.

Without any real info regarding these important factors any claim of how it should be done is about on the same level as my saying the box should have been made a chocolate color. People like chocolate.

"On time" has so many possible meanings just by itself. If a product has to be out the door by X date regardless of quality then the game is over because epic fail has already happened.

Sure- but on time is also one of those real world factors you have to account for.

You can't just say not being on time in order to guarantee a more perfect product will only have positive effects. (Especially considering the "WoTC lied to us about the DDI!!!!" fiasco...)

After that point, as far as I'm aware, they are then reprinting all new Essentials Red Boxes with the new fantasy artwork and new D&D logo, where it will remain on the shelves for the foreseeable future (probably several years at least).

I'm almost willing to bet that at that time they'll be correcting the errors in the box as well.

I'm guessing that was lower in priority for this release, considering probably 90% (or more) of the people who buy it are people buying it mostly for the cover, and not because they actually need an intro boxed set.

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

I had an outline of a well-considered post typed up and started expanding and editing it.

Then I realized it's time to eat and then exercise.

So I deleted that post. But let me say, without clarify or defending my opinions:

This new Starter Set is

• a disappointment,
• a missed opportunity,
• par for the WotC course,
• a demonstration that WotC continues to successfully avoid influence from Hasbro to its detriment,
• a demonstration that WotC continues to successfully avoid learning the right lessons from its past successes and failures to its detriment,
• probably going to do more harm than good to D&D and 4E long-term, and
• at best going to be a very moderate success in terms of bringing new and lapsed players to the game (it will probably be profitable on its own since so little was invested in it).