The New Red-Box...

[MadLordOfMilk]

Indeed.

3 is 50% greater than 2. That is a significant difference for re-playability.

Technically, you could keep going at level 2... but where's the excitement in that?

 

[samursus]

Since we are now on a mini-topic of time vs levels, I'll add my groups experience. Characters JUST levelled to level 2 playing War of the Burning Sky and that has encompassed about 16-18 hours of play over 3 sessions over about 4 weeks.

 

[Hussar]

Just as a question. Yes, previous intro boxed sets went from 1-3 or 1-5.

Why should a new one follow that pattern? It's not like the people playing the new set will have anything to compare it to. Why should tradition be any part of the decision process.

If you have a tradition with intro boxed sets, doesn't that mean that this set is not for you?

 

[Imaro]

Just as a question. Yes, previous intro boxed sets went from 1-3 or 1-5.

Why should a new one follow that pattern? It's not like the people playing the new set will have anything to compare it to. Why should tradition be any part of the decision process.

If you have a tradition with intro boxed sets, doesn't that mean that this set is not for you?

I'm a little confused by this post... who, exactly, is arguing for tradition because it's tradition?

I think some people... even many people in this thread are arguing for what appealed to them when they were new players. With perhaps a few exceptions, I haven't seen anyone posting about what would appeal to them now as experienced gamers... but instead what appealed to them and numerous others during what could easily be considered a large part of D&D's heyday of popularity.

IMO, D&D is competing against alot more now, as far as entertainment goes, than it was back then and it needs to step it up in the beginners set area or new players aren't going to be drawn to it enough to buy more product. This set shouldn't just give them a barebones tatste of the game, but should instead have enough to get the players hooked and invested in their character... as well as enough time for a new DM to hone his skills to the point that the game becomes less awkward and more fun than other forms of social entertainment. IMO, 2 levels isn't enough for this... but it is short enough that it doesn't really create a wow factor above other forms of entertainment and thus doesn't retain many people. This is all IMO of course.

 

[Ariosto]

If one has no other sensible rationale to offer -- Why not follow tradition? -- then the conservative assumption is extremely likely to be a better choice than arbitrary novelty! There is a good chance that the tradition is a product of some consideration and experimentation, and some is at any rate more informative than none at all.

 

[darjr]

I'm a huge GURPS fan. Being one, I've come to recognize choice paralysis when it happens. I think two levels may be enough to get folks started.

The free 1-3 levels of the character builder will help here as well.

edit to add that there is a confirmation from somebody at wizards that it'll be up to 3rd level. Which is better.

 

[Hussar]

My question is, as a new gamer, how would you possibly know that 1-3 levels, or 1-5 levels or 1-2 levels equates to how much playability?

People keep going on about how the old boxed sets went from 1-3 and that seems to be the gold standard. My question is why? Why is 1-3 the gold standard?

Could it possibly be that in Basic D&D, 3rd is when you hit the bottom end of the sweet spot?

Considering the point of 4e is to hit the sweet spot out of the gate, then 1-2 should give you a pretty good taste of things.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

If one has no other sensible rationale to offer -- Why not follow tradition? -- then the conservative assumption is extremely likely to be a better choice than arbitrary novelty! There is a good chance that the tradition is a product of some consideration and experimentation, and some is at any rate more informative than none at all.

What? Excuse me? I think, and perhaps i´m talking out of my armpit here, that this boxed set has been designed for the market that currently exists. Just like most old-school products are designed because out there are people who like certain things.

Creating a boxed set in a certain way just because "that´s how things were done in the past..." sorry, but that just blows my mind. The old boxes were created to appeal to the young would-be gamers, and this one is designed to appeal to the young would-be gamers, and to the people who could possible order such a box (i.e. stores).

I´m all for respecting tradition, but creating an entry product and NOT designing it mainly because of current considerations is suicide. Pure and simple.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If one has no other sensible rationale to offer -- Why not follow tradition? -- then the conservative assumption is extremely likely to be a better choice than arbitrary novelty! There is a good chance that the tradition is a product of some consideration and experimentation, and some is at any rate more informative than none at all.

To make it cost 20 $ instead of 30 $, perhaps?

 

[vagabundo]

To make it cost 20 $ instead of 30 $, perhaps?

This is one of their key goals here: finding an impulse price point. Some old grognard wandering around a toy store looking for a b-day or Christmas prezzy for the little tyke, happens upon the Red Box. 20 dollars, get the hell outta here, that sucker will be under his arm and little johnny will be rolling up a fighter, with Da running the adventure.