Starter Set - $16.99

[TerraDave]

Picking up on what JeffB and Irda Ranger have said:

The "Red Box" was probably the best intro version of the game. Yet for years (at least 15), we have seen the "board-game" approach. And I don't know of many (ok any) people who have come into the game through any of those products.

Why? Why they keep doing it I don't know...but why it doesn't work: those older basic sets succeeded in large part becuase they were not board games. They were different kinds of games. A large part of the appeal was based on that.

Yes, its true that a lot of people (ok, mostly boys) never completely learned how to play "correctly" with those early sets...and its true that many of those boys also did play board games...but those early basic sets got imiginations going in a way the latter ones did not.

 

[Mark]

I'd guess the lower price point implies no minis

Certainly doesn't say anything about minis.

 

[Korgoth]

A book with pre-gen characters, one pre-written adventure and 2-3 high-detail floor plans (1) provides a poor (and inaccurate) example of what "real" D&D is like, and (2) provides zero replay value. That's harmful to both WotC and potential D&D players.

#1 is harmful to WotC because D&D is a particular kind of game, and misrepresenting it in the Starter Kit will heighten (and later crash) expectations among people looking for something more like "Chess: Talisman Edition" while also driving off people who would be interested in what D&D actually is but are not interested in D&D as the Starter Kit presents it.

#2 is harmful to WotC because (IMO) players who run through Save The Unicorn once will "graduate" to full D&D at a much lower rate than players who "experience" Keep on the Borderlands over and over again as different PCs trying different options. They won't graduate as quickly, but it's a safer sell.

I think WotC is afraid of (A) scaring off kids with stuff that's 'too hard' and (B) eating into Core Rules sales. My answer to #A is that kids are smart and like to be challenged as long as its fun (WoW and Halo can be hard), and my answer to #B is "Don't be stupid. No one who really likes the Starter Kit will ever be satisfied with just levels 1-3."

QFT. B2 was such a good choice as a starter module because there were a bunch of different things to do: get into trouble in the Keep, explore a fairly sizeable wilderness, explore the Caves of Chaos, or explore the DM's homebrew dungeon which could be easily fit into a few different places. All in 28 pages, including cover, sample maps and the blank page of graph paper (so really in 25 pages; it even had an intro to DMing section). You could run an entire low level campaign with that module alone.

Now, someone possessed by greed will cry "If they can run a whole campaign with just that module, they'll never buy more product!" And thus such a thing is unlikely to be made. Of course the truth is, if you blow their socks off with the sample product, they're going to want more. Always leave them wanting more, but never leave them unsatisfied.

 

[Masquerade]

The "Red Box" was probably the best intro version of the game. Yet for years (at least 15), we have seen the "board-game" approach. And I don't know of many (ok any) people who have come into the game through any of those products.

I came into the game by saving the unicorn, and I turned out alright. I'll agree that it might not be a perfect representation of D&D, but the 3.0 starter game definitely gave me an interest the larger game, and I've been DMing nonstop ever since. I think the $17 starter set sounds fantastic.

 

[Scribble]

Picking up on what JeffB and Irda Ranger have said:

The "Red Box" was probably the best intro version of the game. Yet for years (at least 15), we have seen the "board-game" approach. And I don't know of many (ok any) people who have come into the game through any of those products.

Why? Why they keep doing it I don't know...but why it doesn't work: those older basic sets succeeded in large part becuase they were not board games. They were different kinds of games. A large part of the appeal was based on that.

Yes, its true that a lot of people (ok, mostly boys) never completely learned how to play "correctly" with those early sets...and its true that many of those boys also did play board games...but those early basic sets got imiginations going in a way the latter ones did not.

I'm not sure which ones are considered the board game ones... I started with Zanzer Tem, and the big black boxed set.

Well to be fair I also had a copy of the red box's book. (And had previously read the Keep on The Borderlands book...)

 

[Joshua Randall]

My guess (and it's only a guess) is that WotC believes that people will continue to be drawn to the game by either joining an existing game, or seeing the books, buying them, and somehow bootstrapping themselves into it. (Don't laugh: the latter is how many people start.)

The purpose of the boxed sets may be to entice people who don't or won't join an existing game or bootstrap themselves into one. In other words, it is different because it is meant to be different -- not because the boxed set is the "one true way" to attract new gamers.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I don't agree at all that it misrepresents D&D. It may mis-represent how you and many others play it, but there are plenty of people that just run pre-written adventures, with no campaign background.

And pre-gen only PCs? I think not.

While some people may strictly play an Adventure Path without any additional campaign info or deviations from the plot, I don't think that's very common. Also, based on every poll I have seen at EN World and elsewhere, one-shot quests simply don't leave nearly as favorable an impression of the game as open-ended mini-settings like B2 and B4. As a counter example to B2/B4, the Dragonlance adventures were not nearly as well received (it was the books that made DL popular).

I'm not saying one-shots are bad. I'm just saying that (according to the polls I've seen, not just IMO) they're not the best value for your gaming dollar spent. If WotC was trying to maximize the value of the Starter Kit, it would look more like B2.

The starter rules don't even have to be complete or take up much room. If you quash down the formatting and exercise restraint on the fluff text I bet you could get the races down 1/2 a page and the classes (levels 1-3) down to 2 pages (1 page front & back). You could even hold back certain races and classes from the Starter Kit. The total rule-book could be 20-30 pages, leaving 40 pages for a mini-setting and 10 pages for plot-hooks and monster stats. I could rock.

Ah well. Enough speculation. I will wait until we have more details and decide then whether it would make a good gift.

 

[DaveMage]

Certainly doesn't say anything about minis.

I thought I read somewhere that it would have counters - not minis.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The starter rules don't even have to be complete or take up much room. If you quash down the formatting and exercise restraint on the fluff text I bet you could get the races down 1/2 a page and the classes (levels 1-3) down to 2 pages (1 page front & back). You could even hold back certain races and classes from the Starter Kit. The total rule-book could be 20-30 pages, leaving 40 pages for a mini-setting and 10 pages for plot-hooks and monster stats. I could rock.

Ah well. Enough speculation. I will wait until we have more details and decide then whether it would make a good gift.

The problem with scaling back the rules is that it wouldn't provide an actual intro to D&D, it would be its own game. What made the old basic boxed sets so awesome was that you got the complete game, with all rules and available classes, spells, monsters, ect. for the 1-3 level scope the set was designed for. In addition to a starter setting and adventure in B2, a DM had all the tools needed to create and run his own adventures all in a 64 page booklet. That is value. Knowing that there was way more beyond level 3 was enough to drive sales of other products.

I don't recall ever seeing an intro boxed set for AD&D. Its probably because the AD&D rules were too complex to be "intro box" friendly.
Thats the same problem I see with 4E. Presenting the entire game, even at levels 1-3 would be a challenge to overcome at that price point. Looking at the combat rules for total newbs would be enough to make a lot of them read, nod, and put the set away never to look at again.

Every ruleset beyond Basic D&D has had the same problem. They are all involved and complex enough so that new players are best served by being taught by someone else that already plays.

 

[JeffB]

I don't recall ever seeing an intro boxed set for AD&D.

cough..look here


I actually bought this at one point just for grins. Neat boxed set, though mine was the smaller normal box size version.