Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Rethinking the 3-Book Model
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Transformer" data-source="post: 5910722" data-attributes="member: 70008"><p>I suppose you've proven your point, delericho; if they cut it down to 10 levels, and paired the monsters down far enough that even beholders didn't make the cut, and had only a few dozen pages for all spells and martial maneuvers, and removed grid combat, it could be 300 pages. </p><p></p><p>But like you said earlier, that may not be desirable, and indeed, I think it would be disastrous. With pairing down the levels, I've seen 4e fans who got angry at the suggestion that <em>epic</em> would no longer be core, let alone removing levels 11-20. I imagine a huge chunk of 3.5 and 4e fans, maybe the majority, would be perturbed not to have those levels in the core.</p><p></p><p>Removing gridded or gridless combat is another sticking point. Fail to support either reasonably well right in the core and you'll have a riot on your hands.</p><p></p><p>Lots of people have favourite monsters; usually they get over it when their monsters fail to make it into the MM1, since they understand that their personal favourites are not necessarily iconic. But with only 100 monsters, and none more powerful than a level 10 party, a whole lot more people are going to be shocked and disappointed that their reasonably standard favourite monster isn't in the books.</p><p></p><p>And, of course, cutting the races and classes down so dramatically is diametrically opposed to Wizards' mission to be as inclusive as possible. Dragonborn are one thing (though I think, as GM Dave said, they have a ton of fans and will be in the core even if they're de-emphasized), but no gnomes? No half-orcs? No warlock? No non-vancian arcane caster? These things have become staples; they are darlings of many 4e players. I doubt there's any hope of converting both 4e players and 3.5/Pathfinderers to the cause without them.</p><p></p><p>Sure, the Rules Cyclopedia did it, and other games do it. But D&D has so much stuff that's expected of it in the year 2012, it just can't reasonably manage it anymore. Call that bloat if you like; I suppose you wouldn't be wrong. But it's the truth; people expect most of this stuff from their D&D, in the core.</p><p></p><p></p><p>As for Starter Sets, I think there needs to be a box at a low price point, and it needs to be, if not on Walmart's shelves, at least on Target's or Barnes and Noble's. A $100 box is not going to attract anyone who isn't already committed to the game.</p><p></p><p>With a box as good as the Pathfinder Beginner Box, I do not think the pay-to-preview problem is a problem. If you try <em>anything</em> (a board game or a video game) and hate it then you've wasted your money. But if you buy that Beginner Box and like it, you could play for a year easily without upgrading. Heck, with a decent amount of imagination and a decent grasp of the system math allowing for homebrew, you could play for 10 years with nothing but that little box. Now, if you're that hooked, you'll undoubtedly want to upgrade, but even once you do you still have a very nice dry erase flipmap, a full set of dice, and a hundred or so excellent standup pawns to use as miniatures. A year of games plus all that? Easily worth the price of the box.</p><p></p><p>If there's a chance a guy might hate the game, I think he's a heck of a lot more likely to risk $30 on it than $100!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Transformer, post: 5910722, member: 70008"] I suppose you've proven your point, delericho; if they cut it down to 10 levels, and paired the monsters down far enough that even beholders didn't make the cut, and had only a few dozen pages for all spells and martial maneuvers, and removed grid combat, it could be 300 pages. But like you said earlier, that may not be desirable, and indeed, I think it would be disastrous. With pairing down the levels, I've seen 4e fans who got angry at the suggestion that [i]epic[/i] would no longer be core, let alone removing levels 11-20. I imagine a huge chunk of 3.5 and 4e fans, maybe the majority, would be perturbed not to have those levels in the core. Removing gridded or gridless combat is another sticking point. Fail to support either reasonably well right in the core and you'll have a riot on your hands. Lots of people have favourite monsters; usually they get over it when their monsters fail to make it into the MM1, since they understand that their personal favourites are not necessarily iconic. But with only 100 monsters, and none more powerful than a level 10 party, a whole lot more people are going to be shocked and disappointed that their reasonably standard favourite monster isn't in the books. And, of course, cutting the races and classes down so dramatically is diametrically opposed to Wizards' mission to be as inclusive as possible. Dragonborn are one thing (though I think, as GM Dave said, they have a ton of fans and will be in the core even if they're de-emphasized), but no gnomes? No half-orcs? No warlock? No non-vancian arcane caster? These things have become staples; they are darlings of many 4e players. I doubt there's any hope of converting both 4e players and 3.5/Pathfinderers to the cause without them. Sure, the Rules Cyclopedia did it, and other games do it. But D&D has so much stuff that's expected of it in the year 2012, it just can't reasonably manage it anymore. Call that bloat if you like; I suppose you wouldn't be wrong. But it's the truth; people expect most of this stuff from their D&D, in the core. As for Starter Sets, I think there needs to be a box at a low price point, and it needs to be, if not on Walmart's shelves, at least on Target's or Barnes and Noble's. A $100 box is not going to attract anyone who isn't already committed to the game. With a box as good as the Pathfinder Beginner Box, I do not think the pay-to-preview problem is a problem. If you try [I]anything[/I] (a board game or a video game) and hate it then you've wasted your money. But if you buy that Beginner Box and like it, you could play for a year easily without upgrading. Heck, with a decent amount of imagination and a decent grasp of the system math allowing for homebrew, you could play for 10 years with nothing but that little box. Now, if you're that hooked, you'll undoubtedly want to upgrade, but even once you do you still have a very nice dry erase flipmap, a full set of dice, and a hundred or so excellent standup pawns to use as miniatures. A year of games plus all that? Easily worth the price of the box. If there's a chance a guy might hate the game, I think he's a heck of a lot more likely to risk $30 on it than $100! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Rethinking the 3-Book Model
Top