The New Red-Box...

[Danzauker]

I think everyone's vastly underestimating the amount of play value in two levels.

According to the DMG, it takes about eight encounters to level up in 4e. Each encounter takes about one hour to play, and each game session has about an hour of ramp-up and wrap-up time. (This matches my experiences playing Scales of War very closely--playing once a week for three hours each, it took us about a month to finish a level.)

So the red box set has 16 hours of encounter gameplay in it, plus an hour per session, plus some solo stuff, plus dice, plus tokens, plus power cards. That's a decent amount of gaming for $20, and easily beats video games or movies in terms of entertainment per dollar. It's certainly not "play it once or twice."

Yes I know that, I was somewhat voluntarily understating the facts.

That's because IMHO I still see the new Red Box as a teaser for the complete game. I'm not sure "replayability" is something the authors are looking for or even wishing for.

For the sake of selling the game, the earlier the new players are hooked, the better. In this digital era, if kids aren't hooked by level 1, they will look for something else. I see even level 2 as a sort of (welcome) bonus.

 

[delericho]

Why is 1-3 the gold standard?

I agree. 1-3 shouldn't be considered the gold standard. Even that's too short. 1-5 should be considered the bare minimum. 1-10 would be better.

As for this putting up the price: so be it. If the core rulebooks are each $35, then the Introductory Set can surely hit the same price point, especially if doing so means that the box can be packed with components that keep their value once you 'graduate' - things like minis, dungeon tiles, character sheets... heck, they should include a CD containing the free version of the character builder, the file for those character sheets, quick-start rules, and basically everything else that they "don't mind" being pirated (because even a pirate copy might entice people in).

In any case, a higher price point may be better - if your Introductory Set is cheap rubbish, then people will assume that the game itself is cheap rubbish, and stay away.

If D&D is to survive, it must attract in new people in numbers. To that end, the Introductory Set should be considered the most important product in the line. Yet once again it seems to be being considered an afterthought, something not worth investing serious resource in, and something to be done to hit the lowest possible price point. (I guess the feeling is that it's something they 'must' do, but something that won't sell, so they're minimising their losses. The problem with that way of thinking is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy - if you don't do the job right because it won't sell, then it won't sell because you haven't done the job right.)

A 1-level 'taster' is actually quite a good idea... but it should be a free sample, not an Introductory Set. The proposed set falls uncomfortably between the two - to big for a free sample, but too small to really entice people in. IMO, of course.

 

[Ariosto]

There appears to be a language barrier here, Keefe and Ridcully, but your English is better than my German. Let us try the "universal language", eh?

1 > 0.

That arithmetic statement summarizes the logical statement I made: A reason is likely to produce a better choice than no reason.

"We should not do that, because we know that it has worked in the past" is not reason but absurdity.

When I am hungry, I do not put a banana in my ear; I put it in my mouth because inference from previous experience is more successful than random behavior.

That is the substance of my statement. It is elementary common sense based on observation of the way things work in the real world.

It is the plain, reasonable answer to the question, "Why should tradition be any part of the decision process?"

Now, if you in fact have some argument in favor of a particular other course, then that is a fine thing. Please do present it! That is quite a different matter than offering no reason -- indeed, no particular alternative about which to reason -- whatsoever.

 

[Jhaelen]

There appears to be a language barrier here, Keefe and Ridcully, but your English is better than my German. Let us try the "universal language", eh?

Maybe I disagree with you for the same reason (I'm German, too)

1 > 0.

Let me counter this with 20 < 30.

When I am hungry, I do not put a banana in my ear; I put it in my mouth because inference from previous experience is more successful than random behavior.

Well, have you heard about something called 'optimization' or even 'improvement'?

Taking your example:
Peeling the banana before putting it in your mouth may work even better!

Tradition may demand that bananas be eaten without peeling, since it's a concept that worked for countless generations, but maybe, only maybe, it's not the optimal approach.

The idea is obviously to get the set down to the absolute minimum required to showcase the complete system.

 

[delericho]

I agree. It's folly to do something because "that's the way it has always been done." WotC should be analysing what was done previously, why it was done that way, and whether it worked or not. Then, based on that analysis, they will have a real basis on which to decide how to proceed - whether that means doing the same again, changing things up, or even abandoning the concept of an Introductory Set entirely.

 

[bagger245]

Yes I know that, I was somewhat voluntarily understating the facts.

That's because IMHO I still see the new Red Box as a teaser for the complete game. I'm not sure "replayability" is something the authors are looking for or even wishing for.

For the sake of selling the game, the earlier the new players are hooked, the better. In this digital era, if kids aren't hooked by level 1, they will look for something else. I see even level 2 as a sort of (welcome) bonus.

I agree with this. I don't think the boxset is intended to be played for a long time without buying more supplements. I am not sure of the old redbox though, but imo Dragon Age boxset seems to model the old redbox closer than the new 4e redbox. We still need the Mentzer box/ Dragon Age box to play and it acts as a foundation to the game, but as for the 4e redbox, once players get the Heroes of.. books and Rules Compendium, do they still need the 4e redbox?

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I agree. It's folly to do something because "that's the way it has always been done." WotC should be analysing what was done previously, why it was done that way, and whether it worked or not. Then, based on that analysis, they will have a real basis on which to decide how to proceed - whether that means doing the same again, changing things up, or even abandoning the concept of an Introductory Set entirely.

What he said. I´d really wish, though, that Wotc could counter "it worked in the past!" arguments with building a time machine and saying "yeah, then we´ll be SELLING IT IN THE PAST!" Which would be awesome.

And i admit it: listening to old ideas to sell stuff to new people is anathema to me. Because many people below 20 buy stuff not (only) because of GOOD but because of DIFFERENT and NOT YOUR PARENTS.

But perhaps i do think that only because Engrish is not my first language and 0 is still < 1.

 

[Ariosto]

Jhaelen: You (and Keefe, etc.) keep erring by assuming statements that are not present -- that I not only have not made, but do not encounter as notions until you make them and attribute them to me.

I have said nothing against 'optimization' or 'improvement'. Neither have you suggested any such thing in the first place, of which I might have opportunity to form an opinion!

Hussar offered nothing at all except an arbitrary rejection of "tradition". That is not an argument but a lacuna. I merely observed that some sensible plan is better than that utterly empty void.

There are, quite simply, usually more ways to get something wrong than to get it right. Random chance is not likely to be an 'improvement' on tradition. (Tradition could produce results worse than chance, but to discover that would involve a process of reasoning.)

 

[Ariosto]

As delericho put it, "WotC should be analysing what was done previously, why it was done that way, and whether it worked or not."

Baseless suggestions that 'tradition' is wrong, without even any suggestion as to what is right, are just vanity, just soap-bubbles in the air!

 

[Imaro]

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.

Again... who is arguing that new gamers will reject the new set because it isn't like the old? What I, and many others I think, are stating is that we don't believe that the play vs. pay of this boxed set is a good deal... we then refer to the red box, or even other TSR boxed sets as examples of what we feel would be a better value for one's dollar.

1-3 isn't the gold standard... again we are talking about the amount of play one gets in for $20. 4e's advancement rate is so fast that playing two levels isn't much play time, or at least not as much as some of us believe is necessary to really get people hooked into the game.

I just don't believe there is enough fun in beginner DM's and beginner players stumbling through the first two levels to intice them to spend more money, I mean... first impressions are everything,and I believe unless time is given to really get in a groove with running and playing 4e it can easily turn off some people who would have enjoyed it after getting over it's growing pains. And as a side note, let's assume these new players don't have the guidance of DDI articles, forum goers, etc.

Honestly, I feel like this set is marketed more towards gamers and former gamers than in actually getting new blood into the hobby... I mean according to your own logic... it's packaging would be unrecognisable to new potential gamers, so why use it? The only logical answer is to play on the nostalgia of current and former gamers.

The problem with this is that I think by using that imagery as a marketing tactic, you set up expectations in consumers who are familiar with the old boxed set (whether purposefully invoking those feelings or not) and failing to live up to and even exceed the old set could make even more people dissapointed in the new beginner set for D&D. Especially if it is little more than the same starter set they've brought out for 3.0/3.5 or 4e in a new package with a few tweaks. YMMV of course.