Got the D&D 4e Starter Set...So whatcha wanna know?

[Imaro]

Yeah, some basic PC gen info would have been easy to include, even if it was just Fighter/Cleric/Rogue/Wizard and Human/Dwarf/Elf/Halfling with one build for each class, still it would be some options.

That said, I think the pregens most of us at ENWorld got early on were instrumental in teaching the fundamentals of the game, alot of us took those first DDX pregens up to 3rd level!

A couple more questions for the OP:

What are the included adventures like?

Are the pregens loose or must they be cut out like the ones in KotS?

The included adventure (there is only one pre made adventure)...is 3 encounters, featuring...goblins, rats, fire beetles, hobgoblins, a dire wolf and gray wolves.

The pregens are regrettably part of the quick start rules, so you either have to cut the pages out or photocopy them to hand them out for use in your game.

I'm kinda torn on this set, even at just $17 I'm not sure how much I like it. So much of it is just reproduced from other products (tiles, quick start, most of the pre-gens, pages from DMG and MM, etc.) that I almost feel like they could have included some PC gen rules and charged a little bit more to make this a really good introductory product. As it stands now, I guess $17 or $12
if you order from Amazon, isn't bad for 3 sheets of extra tiles, tokens and a set of dice, but this is looking at it from the perspective of someone who already plays the game.

Looking at it from the perspective of a new player, I'd probably agree with alot of the sentiments posted above as far as PC gen goes. I mean, if I remember correctly, 4th edition was suppose to have this big focus on bringing in new players and expanding the market base... I don't see this set doing that. I think ultimately WotC has to ask themselves, with a basic set, will this be enough to convince a person to plop down $100+ dollars as well as the necessary time expenditure to experience more of what they get in the starter set.

I would think they would try to showcase what makes D&D unique as opposed to the alternatives (boardgames, videogames, etc.) that will be vying for a consumers money and time. IMO character generation is one of the big ones in this category. For those who talk about casual gamers...I hate to be like this but a casual gamer is most likely not going to grow the hobby and not going to spend $100+ on the core books (I mean a casual player is doing good if they actually buy a PHB as opposed to just using someone elses.). So if these are actually WotC's targets...well I don't think it was a smart move. What they should be trying to do is give their consumer an experience that is different from other forms of entertainment, and I'm just not sure the starter set accomplishes this.

 

[Korgoth]

Sometimes I wonder if WOTC sees D&D too much as a game (which it is, obviously) and not enough as a vehicle for the imagination.

Why is it that D&D was like crack to me as a kid, but other games were fun but I could live without them? Because D&D was a vehicle for my imagination. And one of the prime things we liked to imagine were characters.

As a kid I had the Moldvay Basic rules and some AD&D books. A friend had Mentzer Basic and some AD&D books. It didn't matter that they all didn't "go together". The point of the game was evidently to imagine up some cool s*** and just go crazy. Which is what we did. I remember the aforementioned friend showing me the picture of the Fighter in Mentzer (the bearded guy) and saying something like "He's a ranger." Well, that makes sense: he's Grizzly Adams with a Conan sword. Obviously.

Consistency of rules, "tournament mindset", coloring within the lines. That was pretty meaningless to the folks I played D&D with as a youngster. What captured me about it was that I could make a game... my own game, whatever I wanted, out of all the cool stuff I read in books, saw in movies and cartoons and dreamt up in my own unbridled youthful imagination.

*That* is what makes D&D D&D. That is why, though everyone seemed to enjoy the Dungeon boardgame, nobody was a fanatic about it. We were fanatics about D&D because of the imaginative component. Dungeon was a fun board game, but it was just that. D&D was something else entirely.

 

[Delta]

I would think they would try to showcase what makes D&D unique as opposed to the alternatives (boardgames, videogames, etc.) that will be vying for a consumers money and time. IMO character generation is one of the big ones in this category.

Well stated. The compounded thing that astounds me is, (a) it's so obvious, (b) they refuse to present the "core product" of the game, (c) that's what all their other product lines are centered around (powering-up PCs), (d) they have a direct counterexample in the ~1980s boom with those Basic sets, and (e) they've continued on this path for 10+ years now with at least 3 starter sets like this.

I'm not a fan of 4E. Nonetheless, this ongoing mistake easily trumps it as the worst decision that TSR/WOTC makes. I'm guessing that someone at WOTC knows the company history and says "We need a Basic set to draw in new players!", but the people implementing it have no idea what they mean, and the end result is a horrible garbled misunderstanding about what that means.

If it's not possible to present character generation briefly enough to fit into a starter set, that's case #1 for the game being fundamentally broken beyond repair.

 

[justanobody]

I think there are both kinds of people... those who want to play the game for starters and don't care about what character they have as long as it is not overwhelmingly complex, and those who immediately want to make the character their own.

Bye
Thanee

I think there is a bit of flaw in not including any character creation rules in a starter set. This is what should teach you to play D&D.

If they have the rules for character creation alongside some already made characters, they offer to both fields. With both though they offer the chance to see how the character was made and not miss out. Not every game you go to will or should have your character served to you. It is a part of the game that a starter set should teach.

So with you having both kind of people means either make one starter set for each, or one starter set and have both things in it.....

(Still watching for contents pictures. )

 

[Emryys]

They could direct people to the DnDInsider character build and allow it to be free up to 2nd or 3rd level... this allows a selection of characters and accomplishes exposure to the online content too...

Just a thought...

 

[Imaro]

Well stated. The compounded thing that astounds me is, (a) it's so obvious, (b) they refuse to present the "core product" of the game, (c) that's what all their other product lines are centered around (powering-up PCs), (d) they have a direct counterexample in the ~1980s boom with those Basic sets, and (e) they've continued on this path for 10+ years now with at least 3 starter sets like this.

I'm not a fan of 4E. Nonetheless, this ongoing mistake easily trumps it as the worst decision that TSR/WOTC makes. I'm guessing that someone at WOTC knows the company history and says "We need a Basic set to draw in new players!", but the people implementing it have no idea what they mean, and the end result is a horrible garbled misunderstanding about what that means.

If it's not possible to present character generation briefly enough to fit into a starter set, that's case #1 for the game being fundamentally broken beyond repair.

Yep, though I will point out that the 3.5 basic set with the Black Dragon actually did let you generate your own character (I think it was only up to 2nd level and with limited selection...but still pretty good.).

This basic set honestly makes me feel even more strongly that there is a certain element within WotC (whether the company as a whole or just certain people I don't know) that truly believes holding back content (but giving enough to argue that their products are "complete") is the best way to sell more books and/or get one to subscribe unseen to supplementary online content. Now this tactic might work with gamers who have played D&D and are willing to make the investment because they are already familiar with it...but I don't think it's a good tactic for bringing new people in the hobby.

This trend of behavior is starting to create the perception in my mind that they do not have faith in the quality of 4e as a game, to entice people to support it in a longterm way, without a.)withholding classic content or b.) getting them locked into a subscription for sight unseen magazines. I'm neutral to 4e right now, but this is really starting to rub me the wrong way.


the funny thing is the starter set will probably sell ok, because gamers will want the tokens or the tiles or the dice...or all 3 and figure it's cheaper to buy the starter set. The question though...is how many new players will this set help introduce into the actual hobby? And is WotC more concerned with this or with how much revenue the starter set brings in regardless of where that revenue comes from. IMO, one view is looking towards the future longterm, the other is just about short term profits. Anyway, just some thoughts on it.

 

[Delta]

The question though...is how many new players will this set help introduce into the actual hobby? And is WotC more concerned with this or with how much revenue the starter set brings in regardless of where that revenue comes from. IMO, one view is looking towards the future longterm, the other is just about short term profits. Anyway, just some thoughts on it.

I totally, completely agree.

 

[Korgoth]

the funny thing is the starter set will probably sell ok, because gamers will want the tokens or the tiles or the dice...or all 3 and figure it's cheaper to buy the starter set. The question though...is how many new players will this set help introduce into the actual hobby? And is WotC more concerned with this or with how much revenue the starter set brings in regardless of where that revenue comes from. IMO, one view is looking towards the future longterm, the other is just about short term profits. Anyway, just some thoughts on it.

Yeah, it probably works OK if you're a 3.5 player who has until now resisted trying 4E, and you don't own map tiles or minis/counters. So you get an easy way to learn the rules and you get some basic gear.

But if you're a kid who isn't into mischief and is looking for something to unleash his imagination in a way that World of Warquest doesn't... I don't think this probably has much to offer him.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I'm not a fan of 4E. Nonetheless, this ongoing mistake easily trumps it as the worst decision that TSR/WOTC makes. I'm guessing that someone at WOTC knows the company history and says "We need a Basic set to draw in new players!", but the people implementing it have no idea what they mean, and the end result is a horrible garbled misunderstanding about what that means.

If it's not possible to present character generation briefly enough to fit into a starter set, that's case #1 for the game being fundamentally broken beyond repair.

"I'll take Hyberbolic Overstatement for $200, Alex."

 

[DaveMage]

So the question is simply would this set entice a newbie to play the full game? Does it whet the appetite enough? Does it give an overview of what to expect in the full game? If so, is it well-written enough to overcome the sticker shock that comes with the three core rulebooks?

If it does enough of the above, it's a success. If not, it's a failure.